Moral failures of the developing state

Economic development is one of the primary means by which the Indian democratic project has legitimized itself. Given the electorate of mostly poor people, no government has been elected without development – ​​the upliftment of the downtrodden through service provision, the creation of individual liberty, and the collective opportunity inherent in economic transformation – its primary objective. Unlike radical developmental states such as the Republic of Korea, the post-independence Indian state had to fulfill its mandate of development in the context of a diverse and fissile democracy, which had endured centuries of British colonial domination and confiscation of its wealth.

This historical context, and the bureaucratic and political processes surrounding the distribution of development outcomes, have produced development, but also created significant structural inequalities that have taken various forms in India’s post-independence history. Inequality, corruption and moral resentment associated with the developmental state’s actions, which constitute the state’s broken promises to the people, have been the drivers of waves of political conflict in Indian politics since independence. Moral failures at various stages within the path of India’s developmental state have prompted collective challenges to establish throughout its history.

Criticism of underdevelopment and promises of development were central to the nationalist movement against colonial rule. For early nationalist thinkers, the very idea of ​​India was fueled by the claim that it was one economy and one nation, suppressed in the fulfillment of its destiny by an imperialist system that was trying to keep it divided, While withdrawing its money and sending it abroad. , The Congress party, taking the reins of power, legitimized its rule primarily through a solemn promise that it would redress the structure of political, economic and social inequality by deploying the state to implement far-reaching programs of development. Jawaharlal Nehru in his famoustry with luckThe address pledged the service of a sovereign government to “end poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity”.

there was a disconnect

However, in the first quarter after independence, there was a strong correlation between the promises and actions of the developmental state. The Planning Commission, headed by Nehru, formulated ambitious plans for development, including significant public and private investment in industry and encouraging cooperatives to replace agriculture. The sincere promises of development and removal of inequality for poor farmers and aspiring workers proved to be hollow. Structures of domination and widespread social inequality reigned in the conservative colonial-era bureaucracy and in practice as politicians, business elites and prominent landowners benefited most from this developmental state. The blatant failures of community development programs and economic growth led to political turmoil from the mid to late 1960s.

Indira Gandhi changed the nature of the developmental state. He influenced a populist resurgence from within Congress to bridge the gap between the lofty promises of the state and the diminished reality. His appeal, which ended up splitting the party and changing the nature of party competition, gave his Congress a massive electoral mandate. Indira Gandhi’s slogan ‘Garibi Hatao (Eradicate poverty)’ and her subsequent 20-point program envisioned direct intervention by a strong and enlarged state. The politicized state apparatus was now meant to address social inequalities through land reform, implementation of minimum wages, nationalization of major industries, and expansion of agricultural credit, among many other policies.

controlling state resources

One of the main legacy of Indira Gandhi’s left-wing populism was that the state presented itself as an antidote to social and economic inequalities. The development situation now looked different. The state machinery was fabricated from the national to the state and local levels. Several public sector companies have emerged at all levels of the economy, from the Center to the states. The financial institutions – banking and insurance – were now in the hands of the state authorities. This system promoted corruption, rent-seeking and the capture of state institutions and resources for the benefit of influential clients.

The increasing demand for public resources to satisfy an ever-increasing number of customers proved financially unsustainable. The economy underwent several periods of liberalization, which destroyed some elements of state-directed development in the 1980s, but the basic pattern remained the same. The developmental state was now a state whose resources were allocated by and through political compulsions. And as political fragmentation increased, there was increased pressure to control the remaining state resources for political gains.

The old liberalization of 1991 gave a new shape to the promises to remove inequality. Liberalization introduced a new phrase of increased opportunities. When combined with political fragmentation, neoliberal reform led to crony capitalism, ineffective service delivery, and distrust of the system. Self-help and rights-based discourse have now emerged as part of a new language of development. The United Progressive Alliance government expanded welfare-based entitlements such as the Right to Education and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. But the ambition of these centrally-planned schemes yielded only moderate results on the ground, as petty bureaucrats and local tenants influenced their implementation, thus failing to create a political constituency among the poor around them. The middle classes opposed this new developmental state, which had created a state-facing inequality where the state and the politicians controlling it increasingly determined the life prospects and economic prospects of India’s striving citizens.

change in 2014

In 2014, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi won a parliamentary majority by promising to restore opportunity and clean up politics. His main slogan was ‘Together, development for all’. He attacked the Congress leadership for corruption, projecting himself as a humble “chaiwala” and servant of the people. While Hindu nationalist themes were never off the surface and have become prominent in the BJP’s discourse since the 2019 elections, the right-wing populist moment of the 2014 election saw upper-middle-class professionals and lower-middle-class strugglers. These groups were promised an end to inequality of opportunity, which came to mark the interaction of many citizens with the state in India’s “known” democracy. While Mr Modi’s treatment of Indian body-politics is tremendously polarizing, and his own government seeks to provide economic growth, his politics – echoing regional populists in India, from NT Rama Rao to Jayalalithaa and Mamata Banerjee. Tapped into the mood of widespread dissatisfaction with the state’s development project.

Since 1991, the Indian state is no longer in the business of keeping serious promises of removing inequalities. The state now focuses on development and handouts to voters – a policy honed to perfection in Tamil Nadu by various iterations of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

A developmental ideology is inextricably linked with democratic politics in independent India. The founders of the nation made solemn promises to free the people from inequality and subjugation – the real meaning of development for a democratic India. These considerations are respected more in violation than in adherence. Nehru’s developmental state could not remedy the inequalities and failed to develop the economy rapidly. Indira Gandhi’s policies placed the state at the center of political life. The state was an agent of development, yet, despite the rhetoric, took a back seat in addressing social and economic inequalities. While speaking out loud about development, the current regime does not emphasize the state as the central one to change social norms and remove income inequalities.

All politicians in India promise development as a part of democratic emancipation. Nevertheless, the state apparatus and the political factions that control it reproduce inequality. From time to time populist leaders throw light on these hypocrisy. Their electoral mobilization dramatically changes Indian politics without changing the state’s ability to deliver on political promises. It highlights the idea that development is the most powerful idiom of Indian democracy, an ideal to which ordinary people in social stations hold governments accountable. In other words, development is as much a moral commitment as a techno-technological undertaking. Development is inextricably linked with the meaning of Indian democracy.

Adnan Nasimullah and Pradeep Chhibber teach at King’s College, London and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively.