COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

'I am quite shocked as to how much India spends on military expenditure'

I think a good economic policy in the world in which we live has to be, mainly, open. Having the opportunity of using modern technology, the opportunity of utilising modern trade and exchange, the opportunity of getting finance and capital from abroad -- these are major sources of benefit, if rightly used -- in this context, going in the direction of swadeshi cannot be an adequate response.

And yet, we do know that with the successful opening up of the country to the world economy, those who will be able to make the best use of it will be primarily those who are socially privileged, through educational and other social opportunities.

That connection is important to see. But I don't think there is an argument here to close the economy or go against openness. Spreading economic development across the country can be helped by the opportunities that are offered today by greater trade -- both international and national.

India does need to have a more open economy and so the move made by Manmohan Singh was basically sensible, in the respect. It was not adequate, as we needed a far more radical reform (both in social and economic spheres), but so far as it went in the direction of eliminating one of the major failings, namely counterproductive overactivity in some fields, it was a move in the right direction. But we must also see the strong need to supplement the economic basic by necessary social change.

How much does political instability have to do with the lack of social change?

Some of the failures of social development may be connected with political instability, but I don't think that is the root cause. For example, the Congress government which brought in the economic reforms was a relatively stable government. But there was no concerted effort on other parts of the government to make the social base stronger. There was some change, but not enough. Since then, there has been one government after another, but social neglect has remained a shared feature, as before.

The brings us back to the question of political commitment. Somehow, the importance of social development has not received the political recognition in India that it richly deserves. Locally, some of these issues have been given importance: for example, land reforms became a big issue in West Bengal, education became a big issue in Kerala and Himachal Pradesh. So, there are projects of commitment, but the commitment has to be broadened and universalised. And I don't see, at this time, that any political party has an adequately universalised commitment in the social spheres.

Which political parties, do you feel, can produce the commitment to social change?

It is very difficult to determine what the priorities of the Congress are; it's such a fragmented party today, instead of being the uniting party for the country as a whole. But still, the Congress is a very important party in India, and one hopes that it will be a party that will ultimately take these social matter more seriously than it has been able to do so far.

As far as the Left parties are concerned, locally of course, as I mentioned, they have taken a lot of interest in, say, land reforms in West Bengal, education and health care in Kerala. But the need is to make these commitments more universalised and less fragmented -- to make them much broader and more national. There is also the necessity for parties of the underprivileged sections to emphasise broad-based social change. Quite often, the focus of equity-related politics in India has tended to be quite narrow. The Left-of-centre parties have often concentrated on rather narrow issues, such as 'reservation' of jobs for lower castes. I'm not dismissing these issues, but these parties have to go well beyond them, in addressing the problem of general inequity in India. The record here is disappointing.

From time to time, we hear that parties to the 'right', the Bharatiya Janata Party in particular, could take more interest in basic education. And indeed at the time of the elections, the BJP did mention this issue. I have a lot of criticism of the BJP in terms of its attitude towards communal relations, etc, but on the subject of expanding elementary education and so on, their statements seemed rather positive in some respects. There seemed to be the sound of a commitment in the direction. But I don't see that this commitment, if present, is being translated into action. One would hope that the BJP, as an influential party in India, would take a greater interest in social change.

You have always been highly critical of the massive defence expenditure that India incurs. And now, the nuclear blasts have added a whole new dimension...

I am really quite shocked as to how much India, and indeed most countries in the world, spend on military expenditure, and it is particularly shocking when that expenditure comes from relatively poor countries like India. Even though the basic problem of over-expenditure on military had been there even before the nuclear explosions, this has certainly added a new dimension to the problem. We do need to discuss, more broadly, the wastage involved in massive military expenditure in general -- not just nuclear expenditure.

The nuclear explosion has raised other issues which are indeed quite alarming. The nuclear situation raises critical problems that are not primarily economic, but primarily political. I don't see what advantage India has received from the explosions -- even in the very narrow terms of the objectives of the government. India had military superiority over Pakistan, but now it is balanced stalemate with nuclear bombs on both sides. So, at heavy costs, India has managed to covert its advantage over Pakistan into one of a complete balance of terror.

One could, I suppose, argue that in terms of 'equity' between India and Pakistan, this is quite appropriate, but I don't see how that fits in with the Indian government.

How would you explain the largely 'positive' reaction to the nuclear blasts in India?

It's easy to blame the Indian population, but if suddenly you're told in a country that is still half illiterate, that India has done something scientifically quite complex and very difficult, which not very many countries have done, and this has been done all by home-grown scientists, it looks like quite an achievement... And it is also seen as a symbol of our national power and success.

The fact that the 'downside' of it is much more monumental than the 'upside', may not have become clear without discussion. So I think the failing was not so much that of the Indian population's immediate reaction, it was much more the lack of reasoned political discussion.

Just as I am concerned that the issues of illiteracy, the lack of land reform, the lack of basic health care have not received the attention they deserve in political debate, I think also that the pros and cons of the nuclear issue have not received the attention that they clearly deserved. And that probably helped the government to get an immediate response that was largely positive. But critical discussion is now gaining momentum, and we need more of that.

Kind courtesy: Sunday magazine