India at the crossroads again!

Towards midnight on August 15, 1947 Jawaharlal Nehru asked a long suppressed nation whether they were wise enough to grasp the opportunity of freedom and accept the challenges of the future. In light of recent developments, I think it makes sense for Indians to ask this question again. But before we pose the question, let us take a brief detour of post independence India, to try to understand why it is an important question.

The economic progress from 1950 to 1980 can be captured in one statistics: a meager 1.3% per capita income growth. By 1990s the economy was in dire straits and the government was close to default. This necessitated a package of economic liberalization policies and the per capita income growth was about 7.5% from 1991–2007. While Jawaharlal was a staunchly secular leader and Congress party had a large number of incorruptible leaders during the independence movement, the party itself degenerated into a corrupt and dynastic enterprise during the post-independence period. It reached a nadir in 1975 when Indira Gandhi declared emergency resulting in mass arrests, suspension of political freedom and human rights violations.

India is an amalgamation of various faiths, languages and customs. Many sections of the Hindus and Muslims have eyed each other with suspicion, especially after the partition of British India into India and Pakistan. While Congress proclaimed itself as secular, it never missed a chance to appease any community if such appeasement led to electoral gains. The right wing nationalists such as RSS and other organizations affiliated with it, collectively known as Sangh Parivar, did not even bother to proclaim any such inclusiveness. For them, secularism is an anathema and India has always been a ‘Hindu’ country. One such Hindu nationalist assassinated Gandhi because Gandhi was considered too friendly to Pakistan. The post independence Indian history is littered with religious riots, in which minorities and dalits probably suffered the worst.

By the end of last parliament election, people were getting frustrated with the lack of economic progress and corruption under the congress government led by Manmonhan Singh. This was an opportunity for Narendra Modi, an RSS member and leader of BJP. Using marketing skills and technology rivalling the 2008 Obama campaign, he was able to convince the Indian voters that he will be able to deliver their economic dreams. But ever since he came to power, there is a growing environment of intolerance all over the country. To be fair, there was always intolerance in India, but it has reached an alarming level under the current government. Many sections of the people are unhappy with the inaction and sometimes tacit support of government to those who preach hate. A number of academicians, writers and businessmen have criticized this situation. But instead of acting on such criticisms, the government’s response is to attack the criticizers.

It is in this context that Indians need to ask whether it worth supporting intolerance in their quest to attain economic progress. In my opinion, policies that undo the secular and democratic structure of the country are not worth a couple of points of GDP growth, even assuming that such a growth materializes. What we need is an Indian electorate that unambiguously declares that they need both economic progress and a tolerant, vibrant and democratic society.

But how do we get from here to there? Indian democracy has done an admirable job of holding together a disparate set of people with different regional, linguistic and religious backgrounds. Only a few other countries with such a diverse population have been able to achieve this after coming out of colonialist rule. However, weaknesses abound: sectarian thinking among people, inefficient judiciary and a government that is weak in dispensing justice. The list is long. As a first step to get out of this situation, the Indian electorate should start thinking outside the narrow framework of partisan politics. Politicians who cross certain red lines, such as participating in or encouraging religious riots or any sort of violence should not be elected irrespective of their other capabilities or party membership. Unlike the US judicial system, the courts in India are extremely slow and the conviction rates are very low. Most of the time people who commit violence whether for political gains or for other reasons do not get any punishment. The vital institutions necessary for democracy to work should be protected and strengthened.

India will need to look into its past and present to find what path it should take to prepare for the future. Looking at the past will help it determine which ideas it should accept and which ones it should reject. The country was a fertile ground for ancient ideas emphasizing tolerance and quest for knowledge, which many other civilizations at that time were not familiar with. But its history also contains elements of subjugation and denial of knowledge to fellow human beings. Looking at the present, India can determine why some societies today are able to fulfill the aspirations of their citizens and how are they accomplishing it as well as why some other societies fail to do so and deny democratic rights to its citizens. A rational and unbiased thought process along these lines will tell us that the right path is that that of democracy, secularism and tolerance.

It is time again to ask this question again, which Nehru so eloquently put forward in his ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech: Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?