The Hindu Business Line : Nation needs a new partnership

If India is to make real progress, it needs a marriage of hard-headed business interests with socially-sensitive activists. With practically no debate taking place in Parliament or in the legislatures, the polity appears to be steadily deteriorating. A united civil society is needed to bring some order into the political jungle, says P. V. INDIRESAN.

There is a story about the fall of the "impregnable" Maratha fort in Chikalda, which boasted of some of the finest fortifications in the country and was stocked with so much armament, water and food that it could hold out for years. Losing a battle against the British, a Maratha general retreated to the Chikalda fort only to face a bitter quarrel with the Governor of the fort. The general demanded control of the fort, pulling rank; the Governor would not yield as he was the local boss and the general's sway did not extend there. Even as the British started scaling the walls of the fort, in the absence of specific orders, neither the general's soldiers nor the Governor's men took any steps to block the enemy. Only when the situation became grave, did the two stop their quarrel. In the end, they did fight together; their bodies were later discovered lying side by side at the entrance of the fort. But their valour had been futile in the absence of wisdom.

In West Bengal, we are witnessing a bitter feud between two antagonists. Both have lots of muscle power. Both are able but concerned only about personal victory and not about the dangers engulfing their State. According to recent reports, West Bengal has the dubious distinction of having the largest number of children out of school. In this knowledge century, illiteracy is a deadly enemy. Naxalism is another.

With intellectuals of the highest reputation in the country, West Bengal is better equipped than any other State to fight the ills of illiteracy. With their socialist ardour, they should know better than any other how to tackle Naxalism. However, they are not tackling either menace; their quarrels are bleeding the State even as Naxalism and illiteracy are slowly and steadily engulfing it.

Egotism is probably the worst of our national sins. Insensitivity to deteriorating conditions is another. Like the frog which would not jump out of the slowly heating pan of water, we let ourselves cooked to death, provided the heat is applied slowly enough.

In the past fortnight, I attended two conferences with entirely different types of participants. In one, dominated by people from business, a top executive of one of the largest industrial groups in the country strongly defended the scheme of Special Economic Zones. Basically, he had two arguments: One, the idea of SEZ was discussed in detail for over five years before it was finalised. "Where were the critics all those years," he asked rhetorically, "that have started criticising now?" But he had no answer when he was asked whether during those five years, the farmers were ever consulted.

His second argument was based on the principle "a deal is a deal". His point was that, once a farmer accepted his compensation, there are no grounds for complaining that land value increased far more than expected, and hence the farmers were short-changed.

That highly competent executive made this plea after I had asked the assembled audience whether they were conscious and concerned about the increasing rural-urban disparity and the growing Naxal menace. Evidently, he was not concerned either about the economic injustice or about the real dangers businesses are likely to face from mass violence.

No Self-Doubt

The second conference was attended by veterans of rural development and was devoted to rural technology. The participants were all disciples of Schumacher and his idea Small is Beautiful. They were unconcerned about the growing rural-urban disparity and about the Naxal menace too. Neither were they bothered about suicides among farmers. In almost every respect, they differed from the business executive, except in the matter of self-doubt — neither had any. Their hearts were in the right place but they would not enquire where they had gone wrong. Like the business executive, they too had no interest in enquiring in what way they should change and improve their policies.

As matters stand, after fifty years of rural development starting with S. K. Dey's Community Development Programme, rural-urban divide has widened into a chasm, and continues to widen every day with agriculture growing barely 2 per cent a year and the urban economy growing nearly 10 per cent a year. Per capita, bank credit is 27 times more in cities than in villages. Rural-urban migration has become so rampant that the disparity in human capital is even greater. Yet, in substance, there is little difference in what rural do-gooders tried to do fifty years ago, and what they are doing now.

Falling Star

One particular instance must be brought to the fore even at the risk of causing much anger or distress. Most persons, whether they are top-level planners or grassroots workers and the villagers themselves, are convinced that food processing will save them from their poverty. They all fail to realise that agriculture is a shrinking part of the economy. With their faith in agriculture, they are hitching their fortunes to a falling star. The savings market has dozens, possibly over a hundred mutual funds with varying emphasis on different aspects of the economy. There is not one "agricultural fund". If any were offered, there would be no takers. Only exceptional specialists can get more out of agriculture than they will by investing anywhere else. Depending on agriculture for a prosperous future is a mug's game for everybody else.

We may observe here two types of ostrich-mind. One kind, represented by the successful executive adheres blindly to Adam Smith. The second, the much poorer rural do-gooders adhere blindly to Schumacher. Both forget that, as Karl Popper has explained, pursuit of scientific truth requires disproving received wisdom, not following it blindly. The true visionary is not a follower of old ideas but an originator of new ones.

So long as our political, business and societal leaders keep quarrelling about who is superior and who is inferior, none of them will come face-to-face with real issues. Neither will the blame game help in anyway. In such a situation, democracy too is of little use: People may choose the least incompetent among them but will not make any one of them more competent. That is why we need thinkers, not ideologues.

We need a marriage of hard-headed business interests with socially-sensitive activists. There is an anecdote about a beautiful actress who proposed to George Bernard Shaw and gushingly suggested that if they marry, they would have children with her beauty and his intelligence. Shaw quelled her by pointing out that it could be the other way round — the children may inherit his beauty and her intelligence.

Even with the risk that a marriage of business with activists could result in policies with the hearts of businessmen and the minds of social activists, we should bring them together. Violence and intolerance are both growing; practically no debates take place in Parliament or in the legislatures. These are symptoms of a failing democracy. The polity is slowly but steadily deteriorating. Like the Maratha general and governor, our politicians are quarrelling bitterly with no thought for the dangers engulfing the country. That is why we need a united civil society to bring some order into the political jungle.

(The author is a former Director of IIT Madras. Response may be sent to indiresan@gmail.com)

(This is 203rd in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article was published on June 11.)