Prof A N Sadhu
Having remained subjugated to foreign rule for over a thousand years, the country woke up to independence with a legacy of economic stagnation, primitive society, and nascent political system. The transformation could obviously be the only primary goal of post-independence management. Surprisingly, this contemplated process of over-hauling the vested regimes missed the reference to the road blocks of continuous civilisational transformation, on the one hand and to the need of unlocking the windows of obliviousness of ancient Indian culture, on the other. Socio-economic transformation, therefore, became the main objective of the government right from the dawn of independence. It has been pursued thoughtfully and consciously, though due to implementational bottlenecks the results have remained sub-optimal. The post-independence period may be divided into the following phases.
i. 1947-50
ii. 1951-91
iii. 1991-2014
iv. 2014….
The 1947-50 was a period of consolidation. The database had to be updated, the financial status of the country had to be ascertained and immediate infrastructural requirements had to be carefully assessed. It took first three to four years to gauge the economic status of the country which had undergone a long period of stagnation and drain of its economic resources. This period of consolidation prepared the launching pad for an era of planned socio-economic development in the country. It cannot be denied that the plan/ experiment of Soviet Union between 1928-47 had a great impact on economic thinking of the newly emerging independent countries of the world and India was no exception to this. This period also shaped the political framework for the country and we entered into an era of democratic republic based on an exhaustive constitutional document built on equality, fraternity and justice.
The period beginning 1951 marked the first phase of transformation of the country based on Five-Year Economic Plans. Since the world had taken a bipolar shape, we acted smart by taking both the blocks on board through a mixed- economy model; hoping to get much needed foreign assistance from the countries following capitalist model and aiming at distributing the gains of growth through a socialist model. The First Five-Year Plan witnessed the launching of ambitious developmental projects such as Bakhra-Nangal etc, as far as the building of physical infrastructure is concerned, and providing wide-spread educational network to strengthen the intellectual build-up. The leaders engaged in the freedom struggle were at the centre-stage soon after the independence and because of their honest and committed efforts, the first plan did witness a remarkable success in realising the targets of agricultural growth and reasonable stability on the economic front.
The Second Five-Year Plan was a disaster due to floods and the Five Year Plans thereafter were consumed by rampant corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency. Continuing with colonial model of administration did handicap the delivery of required services to the society as the administrative system in the country became a captive of corrupt political regime, more by choice than by chance. The country does need a Development Administration Model based on inspiration and not on command, be receptive and not rejective and pull up the system to higher levels of performance rather than pushing it down because of intolerance and self-righteous syndrome. The system should be facilitative and not obstructive in nature. Some re-thinking must go in modifying our administrative delivery systems in the country. Because of corruption, administrative lethargy, public indifference and political instability, the country did fall in an economic trap which resulted into falling international economic ranking causing a serious drop in the flow of foreign funds into the country.
Thanks to Dr. Manmohan Singh (FM) and his PM Narasimha Rao, who engineered the new economic policy and took some bold decisions which brought the economy back on rails. The new economic policy was based on Adam Smithian principles, adopting privatisation, liberalisation, and globalisation as its founding principles. In fact, the collapse of Soviet Union significantly contributed to developing countries’ shift towards capitalist regime. Therefore, the economic phase beginning from 1991 marked a significant departure from the earlier economic policy based on government regulations and control.
Th New Economic Policy (NEP) undoubtedly infused much needed stimulus in the economic rejuvenation of the country. The resilience of the economy stood it in good stead and new initiatives boosted the investment climate and the country witnessed a spurt in its growth environment. However, frequent financial scams during 2004-14 appeared to be derailing the smooth run to higher levels of economic growth. The financial meltdown in Japan and other developed countries of the west caused serious market fluctuations on the global level, impacting Indian economy as well but not to such a detrimental extent as would hinder its forward movement. Indian economy absorbed these shocks because of its inherent strength and escaped a serious fallout. While as the economic environment, more or less satisfactory, the political environment tended to be vascillant. The PM could not take bold decisions to correct the distortions that set into the systems more on political front than on economic front. The PM remained handicapped because of in-house problems on the one hand, and also because of his dependence on the coalition partners on the other. The policy of appeasement was emboldening some fissiparous tendencies and some sections of beneficiaries under this policy were hobnobbing with elements, both from within and from outside- inimical to the interest of the nation- to weaken the country and its resolve to emerge as an economic giant on the global scale.
The process of transformation during these three phases remained confined to socio-economic paradigms mainly and civilisational aspects as also the ancient cultural heritage aspects did not receive the required attention. Although, the RSS has been working in an organised manner through its selfless workers and volunteers, their genuine efforts to revive the grandeur of ancient India did not receive the political space. Rightly or wrongly, it was viewed as a movement not fitting into the country’s secular traditions. The terms Hindu nationalism and Hindutva came to be used with the beginning of the latest phase of transformation starting from 2014, some people have also used the expression of political Hinduism. Apart from fighting the elections on development plank the BJP has shown its concern to revive the rich cultural heritage of the country. The critics need to take a broader view of comprehending the term “Hindutva”. It may not be viewed from the religious angle; it should be understood from the civilisational angle. The term Hindutva should connote a social system encompassing all faiths contributing to the nationalism in an equal measure. The Hindutva is not exclusivist but an expression “of integral humanism” as according to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhaya. The Hindutva right from Vedanta has been propagating and promoting the philosophy of accepting the world as one family and wishing everyone to be happy in the world.
The earlier regimes could have revised and upgraded the educational system both from historical perspective as also from technological perspective. One cannot disbelieve the references to landmarks of scientific advance in ancient India. Post- independence educational models were mostly imitative, evolved elsewhere in the world, maybe those needed to be adopted as suiting to prepare our youth to handle the issues of scientific and technological advance achieved in the developed countries of the world but it needed to be supplemented by educational programmes, relating to the past glory of the country. It is important to note that this phase of transformation is comprehensive spread over to socio-economic transformation as also to the revival of rich Indian heritage. In a pluralistic society the note is required to be taken of the sensitivities of different sections of population. There is scope for misunderstanding when a touchy expression is used even though it may be used for objective communication.
This phase of transformation is being critically viewed by the political and social analysts. The political analysts are apprehensive of political domination tending towards shrinking the base for a healthy opposition and social analysts apprehend the emergence of some social structural inequality not in conformity with the evolution of a pluralistic social order. This debate will take some time to sort out these apprehensions. There are economic issues as well. The bold decisions taken of “demonetisation and GST” are still being debated as regards their adverse impact on Indian economy. Unemployment and price-rise are seriously hurting the general public. The emergence of a few islands of affluence in an ocean of depravation is being viewed as an intentional attempt to change the terms of trade in favour of a few business houses who have registered a very high rate of growth in their incomes even during the pandemic period. That this phase of transformation may not lead to instability of economy, polity and society will have to be carefully safeguarded. The process of transformation shall, however, continue to keep pace with the changing world order.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel