By Srinivasan K. Rangachary
Indian society and politics have seen visible shifts during the decades after Independence. The 65- years after 1947 have three distinctly different eras: “Nehruvian era” from 1947 to 1966, “Indira Gandhi era” stretching from 1966 to 1984 and “economic liberalization era” after 1991 until today. These “eras” are not to be confused with the persons; they only signify the ethos or values that these “personalities” predominantly exhibited. The word “values” implies the aspects of interpersonal relationships, political governance and economic affairs between the people of the nation.
As per the Constitution of India, the intention was to establish an egalitarian and democratic state — we may call them the “values” of the nation. That intention was increasingly belied over the above mentioned three eras. The drift has been perceptible as one era ended and the other began.
During the Nehruvian era, prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, his ministerial colleagues, his party men, the opposition parties, and the knowledgeable people of this country — all of them — shared a common dream of improving the lot of the poor and of an egalitarian society where one day every citizen will have equal opportunity to food, health, education, basic necessities of life and for individual growth. When sometimes things went wrong, the leaders in politics and society owned up responsibility.
It was not just the people in government or in politics, but the citizens in general behaved in a similar manner. Looking after the needy, feeble, poor and aged was considered a social norm. Three or four generations of people, first cousins and second cousins, all of them either stayed together or supported each other when needed. Despite the obvious paucity of resources, the support network was wide — although it was in the form of the extended family.
When India was bruised badly in the China war of 1962, Pandit Nehru wept and the whole nation shared his sorrow. When a railway train derailed, the then railway minister Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned voluntarily. Politics was similar to social leadership. Politicians were less of politicians and more of social workers. It was an era of leadership of conscience.
Nehru and Shastri passed away and an era of politics of power began. Power play came to be recognised as an integral part of governance. In order to carry on with its functions — even those concerning serving the interests of the poor, a noble aim — the government needed enhanced powers. It was not only Mrs. Indira Gandhi, but the whole political leadership then — her party-men as well as others — became aware of the need for political power. Confrontation became necessary. The Indian nation had not delivered sufficiently until then to take care of the increasing number of hungry mouths and naked bodies needing basic clothing and shelter.
Poor people, as usual, had no voice of their own. The elite above them, i.e. the middle class people — those who had sufficient food, clothing and housing — gave voice to the concerns of the poor. Rapid rise in social activism and NGOs were a representation of this period. Increasingly, in order to try to help the poor, one had to be on the other side. “System” had developed faults and a repair had to be carried out externally. Garibi hatao (eradicate poverty) was still a slogan of sufficient weight in the Indian polity and society. It was the ‘middle class’ that was the bridge between the “have nots” and the “haves”.
But, the Indian economic machine could not produce for the needs of all. Whether said openly or not, the message went that economic egalitarianism was not working. The year 1991 saw economic liberalisation. Under the slogan of “free enterprise” went a subtle message that “no lunch was free” — not even for those who were in utter poverty. Even the disaster victims in dire need were not spared. Food could rot in government warehouses but was not to be distributed free. One had to earn it, by hook or by crook. Everyone was unto himself. Social responsibility was given only a lip service.
“Enterprise” was interpreted as “individualism”. Politicians, administrators, businessmen, employees of government and private sector — all those who had a wee bit of discretionary or decision-making power started using it to further their ends. Work corruption, quality corruption, money corruption, usurping or encroaching on the other’s money and property corruption, corruption of flouting the rules that existed for the common benefit, and various ways of bending the regulations came into existence. Chaprasi (peon) took his share, Babu (clerk) took his own but felt jealous and squealed when the higher level administrator grabbed a lion’s share.
No one had any time to look at the plight of over 300 million that were going hungry — a majority of them young children. All the greed did generate some momentum in the economy but that was really limited to the elite which include the so-called “middle class”. Does it trickle down to the really poor? How will it? There are no mechanisms for such “trickle effect” to occur. No one is really bothered. Even the middle class has its own issues. All are busy grabbing whatever one can, before the other fellow would.
In the process, the threads in the fabric of Indian society are coming loose — some are very long and stout while many others are short and feeble. Egalitarianism has now found a new avatar in this “free for all”. Leadership, if there is any, is mired in chaos. INAV