THE world has changed and so too economic thoughts. To Nehru Indias freedom would not be complete without economic independence Today no one talks of economic independence The talk is on globalization This is the measure of the changes that have taken place in nearly half a century Nehru was a socialist in spirit. His approach was humanistic and aesthetic. He abhorred poverty and detested the dolce vita of the idle rich. He did not know then that socialism could be both inefficient and inhuman. It is said of his daughter that she was a politician. This is only partly true Indira was not a mere politician clawing at every expediency to advance her political career. She had thoughts of an illustrious place in Indian history But her preoccupations were more on the greatness of India and not as was that of her father on human destiny. To her socialism was neither an obsession nor the only means to achieve her objectives. It was the shame of India’s dependence that spurred her on to the “green revolution” not of growth Nehru and Indira worked within the enormous limitations of the Indian milieu. Nehru was beset by the conservatism of his close associates and the encrustations of ages Indira by the opportunism of the men who came to be called the “Syndicate.” In trying to carry the amorphous Congress organization with him Nehru lost his initial drive; Indira being less patient chose to split the party and disperse her does in either case India paid heavily for want of a clear national economic policy.
It Still pays the domestic situation was not favorable for a radical advance the global climate was even less propitious. Although the colonial powers conceded political independence they were reluctant to promote the economic independence of their erstwhile colonies. As for America it wanted to prize open the closed colonial markets in the name of free trade But the USA had other ambitions too: to have political and economic hegemony over the world. With globalization as its presented end and it has nearly succeeded in abolishing national frontiers.-But while an integrated global economy. (Even with dominance of the rich over it) is logical and acceptable hegemony in any other field will not be welcome to nations. A radical shift to the right in Europe and Japan can yet undo all that has been done in the past two decades. This is the inherent contradiction between capitalism and international politics as pointed out by Benjamin Schwarz of the Rand Corporation of America a Republican “think tank” in New York Times recently Nehru chose planning as the main instrument of his economic strategy. On this some of his colleagues deserted him. With no capital trained man power and technology India could not have taken to laissez faire But America tamed hostile to Indian planning because it associated planning with socialism. Today with globalization no transnational corporation can Survive without global planning of Is activities. Unfortunately India is disbanding its own planning outfit at a time when command over information (informatics) and planning alone can ensure Indias success in the world It is unfortunate that a parry like the BJP clarinet see the difference between bureaucratization and planning
Planning and the public sector spawned a powerful industrial base in India. It could have generated huge funds for further investment. But that was pot to be for by forcing the public sector to subsidize the growth of the private sector by underpricing its products and services the mile cow was almost done to death. Today it is being given a new lease of life. But for what purpose? The damage has been done. There is a melee today to pick up the plums of what remains the elite are busy converting public funds into private property. The path Nehru chose did give India a measure of economic independence and self-reliance In tum it helped the Country to resist western political pressures. Having strayed away from this path the country has exposed itself to western blackmail We witness edit recently the arm twisting of India by Washington America is after global hegemony and expects total surrender.
It was India which led the struggle for a New International Economic Order (NIEO). Today it is America which is trying to sell a new world order of course its own variety. But there is no change of heart in America only a change of tactics Remember the rich nations opposed the demand of the developing countries for NIEO for sovereignty over their natural resources and a code of conduct to. regulate the TNC entry. Today we ho more ask for any of these. We have not only placed at the disposal of the TNCs our markets but also our resources including our Seabed resources. Throughout the long years since the end of the last world war the West had followed a Single objective: to prevent the emergence of the developing world into an independent riyal center of power (The idea of Kesar Meat ter-dependence was rejected achieve this objective/dirtied to burden the poor with debts cut off Official aid and refused to transfer advanced technologies
The oil crisis (1973-83) came to abet the process It overwhelmed the developing countries (except Oil producers) with crushing debt. The third world could never again rally its ranks it is struggle collapsed on its own. As debtors the developing countries were forced to accept more and more conditionalities paving the way for foreign investment and deregulation. In the meantime behind the facade of Indias economic success reluctantly acknowledged by the West there began to fester many Of the congenital ills of a controlled and command economy distorted planning growth of a powerful bureaucracy political interference high cost structure want of a competitive edge in world markets industrial sickness low productivity labour redundancy lower profits etc And the final coup came with the debacle of the USSR. After that India could no more talk of its faith in socialism planning and the public sector In one fell sweep everything was Swept aside. Rajiv Gandhi inherited this onerous legacy -an economy in urgent need of radical repair modernization and reconstruction But he had even less experience than his mother Being a modem man with no commitment (o an ideology he was impatient with the slow ways of India. He relied on science and technology (he set up a number of technology missions) and modem management and opened up the economy to external Competition (automobiles and electronics are instances) But the reliance was on the mechanism of export and import This led to steep rise in imports which forced India to borrow more and more on commercial terms Soon enough it was facing an unprecedented financial crisis. With their competitive populism the two non-Congress regimes that followed Rajiv brought the country to the verges bankruptcy.
To Narasimha Raos to fell the task of overcoming the crisis and restoring the health of the economy but he was crippled by the financial legacy. Al thought continuity with change remain the official watchword of the regime the changes of the fast three years have been radical: the regime has freed the economy of bureaucratic controls threw it open to external competition gave up detailed planning restructured the fiscal monetary and trade regimes and created favorable conditions for foreign investment. The entire economy snow market-oriented No more do we talk of protecting the consumer industries or the small-scale sector or of promoting self-reliance or directing for sign investment into high-tech areas or export zones In fact he entire industrial policy of the past has been given up. Indias following the western model without the courage to acknowledge it many had warned us against it been forgotten
The initial results of the reform are however positive. This bound to be. Even the\ cx treaty is designed to benefit poor. This is a kind of price with the West is ready to pay the poor for being mute. But India has taken a plunge into darkness. We do not know what is in store but haying accepted integration with the global economy India has little option but to meet the challenge of globalization. There is no insult ance cover for failure.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 22, 1994
