By Paul H. Kreisberg
All across India, the “ins” are out. But last week’s elections were not contested over national policies. There were no rousing debates about the direction of foreign, economic or social initiatives. The votes were for individuals and against ruling political groupings. India’s 500 million voters (of whom 50 to 60 percent actually voted) are not sure what they want from government except that it be effective, fair and honest and improve their lives, and they concluded that most of those who had been representing them did not meet this standard. Unfortunately, there is little prospect that the incoming representatives as a group will be a vast improvement, although several of their leaders, particularly the head of the new National Front, VP. Singh, are several cuts above average.
The Gandhi administration hoped that economic growth and the spread of material goods, the “bread” of the last two years’ best ever harvests and even the “circuses” of TV extravaganzas (yearlong renditions of the two great Hindu epics) would lead the voters to say, “Yes, we are better off now than five years ago.”
But it was higher prices, insufficient housing, a growing aware ness of inequity in the distribution of the benefits of growth, along with a sense that their representatives didn’t care, that seem to have stuck in the voters’ minds.
THE SWEEP of the upsets, from Parliament to state legislatures, suggests a pervasive resentment of mounting petty corruption burdening daily life in buying rail road tickets, getting telephones or electric lines connected, dealing with the police, obtaining licenses.
Multiple shuffling of Cabinets and senior civil servants, the constant drumfire of criticism in the press against Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the secretiveness of decision-making on major matters by a small coterie around him left urban intellectuals and many in the middle class with a sense that government was a place of confusion and incompetence.
Far more critical seems to have been a widespread feeling in the rice paddies and millet fields that officials and politicians at every level were interested in their own profit.
It is difficult to imagine that Gandhi will remain as prime minister, or even as leader of the Congress (1) Party, in the aftermath of its crushing losses. That would indeed be a momentous event, signaling the end of the 40year Nehru family dynasty in Indian politics. And that combined with new divisions that will make coal it informing particularly difficult, could bring about a major political realignment.
THE ELECTIONS underscored the changes occurring in India’s demography and economic life. Development has increased social tensions between castes, between Hindus and Muslims and between the new rich and the still poor.
Those living in poverty are increasing in absolute numbers even though more than 150 million Indians have crossed the threshold to some form of middleclass life. It is not the popular desire for growth and development that poses the problem for Indian politicians but, as in any democracy, how the benefits are distributed.
The potential for violence and disruption is high. Disparities in wealth have grown, but with a decline in the traditional justification for such differences. For many in northern India, a return to a Hindu Raj, which would provide such rationale, seems attractive. This could be truly worrisome for minorities in India Muslim, Christian, Sikh as well as for India’s neighbors.
The 350 million Indian sat independence will have become 1 billion only 50 years later when the new century begins. Making all major domestic policy decisions in Delhi has become impossible. Increasing decentralization of authority will be a priority for any new government.
IF THE MESSAGE of the Indian voter is heard correctly, what is most needed is dedication and sacrifice on the part of politicians and officials at every level. One set of “rascals” has been thrown out, but it remains to be seen whether those who have been elected will be able to repair 20 years of damage inflicted on Indian institutions by politicians of every stripe.
Article extracted from this publication >> December 1, 1989