Nehru and the National Philosophy of India: Secularism

[SarthakGanguly]

1. What is your problem if they want to hold onto some archaic personal laws, that drags their society behind, not yours?

2. How a common personal law will end the culture of communal politics in India other than satisfying some egos and ruffling some others' egos?

3. Is some minority community truly above equal in India, isn't the appeasement politics nothing beyond tokenism?

Expecting answer.

Your complaints have been repeated since the beginning of the RSS or the latter Sangh parivar. After independence, the Hindu right did exist. But what was its popular appeal? Practically nil.

1. They are Indians. If they lag behind, they drag us all down. For an inclusive society, we need to move forward together. Otherwise it's pointless. The difference in social levels was instrumental in Partition 1.0 .

2. A personal law is just one example of the discrepancy. There are a hundred other reasons. This thread will be spammed if I elaborate.

3. No, it does not go beyond tokenism. The existing madrasas is a vibrant example. What good is a madrasa Board, you tell me. Do we cry for not having a Hindu Board or a Sikh board of education? What good is a madrasa graduate - other than a handful of maulanas and the Waqf boards? How many millions 'graduate' every year without a source of livelihood? Who will give them jobs? The education is just one example. There are plenty of similar issues. In fact in some cases the appeasement goes to shameless levels - the Imam stipend in West Bengal for example. The turning of the Shah Bano verdict was another.

As for the appeasement politics nothing beyond tokenism - it is even worse. Even if the extra laws had benefited the Muslims, and they truly prospered, perhaps they would have torn down the inequalities. Instead the present system provides incentive to cunning Islamist politicians while actually keeping the public in a permanent state of victimhood to claim more benefits.

Point I am making is we are not a secular state, and we should stop pretending to be one.

Also you did not give me any major enterprise that was established in the reign of Nehru, without any Govt. investment?

 

[dray]

Yes, but how many were established WITHOUT Government intervention?
Secondly what major foreign or domestic investment happened in India? Compare the investments in Sri Lanka or Pakistan in comparison in the same period.
Also, Nehru laid the framework, while those who followed reaped the rewards.

You are trying to judge Nehru's economic policies of a newly liberated India of 1947-1964 from the worldview of 21st century India.

Why there was government intervention in private sector?

After independence we were critically short of capital, resources were scarce, and the idea was to make optimum use of the scarce resources in critically important sectors and avoiding duplication of investment in one place, the idea was to build the nation.

Now, is this an obsolete idea in modern India? HELL NO!! Take a couple of examples:

Example 1: Recently Chandra Shekhar Ghosh's Bandhan got a banking licence to open a new bank in India. Who were in the race to get the licence? All the BIG names of corporate India you can think of, TATA, Birla, Ambanis, L&T, Bajaj, etc.etc. Have you ever heard of Chandra Shekhar Ghosh and his organization Bandhan? I guess no. Then how did he got the licence beating all the Goliaths? Because his organization has the expertise of working in rural India in Micro-finance business, and RBI wanted the new banks to enhance the banking and micro-finance network in rural India for the economic betterment of rural India, they even have the clause that mandates the new banks to open branches majorly in rural India and not in a already over-serviced cities. Sounds similar to what Nehru thought?

Example 2: Our private sector telecom companies have an obligation and set target of expanding rural telecommunication network, failing which they have to pay certain amount of penalties that goes into a separate account with BSNL to enable BSNL to fulfill the obligation. Government still make sure that private sector is also fulfilling certain social responsibilities and contributing to nation building, and not solely into profit making.


Apart from optimum utilization of scarce capital and resources, another reason for intervention (if you call it intervention) was to provide the private sector crucial knowledge, expertise and also incentives in specific sectors to help them set up their businesses in those sectors, as well as contribute in nation building. Even today government provides these benefits to private sector companies in specific sectors, even today government decides prices of certain commodities even for private sector companies, Nehru's economic policies are still relevant in Modi's India.


About your question on foreign investments in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, how much industrialized they are today compared to India? How many of their companies are global now compared to India? Look around the world, almost all the third-world underdeveloped non-European nations of that period, who opened their markets to stronger foreign companies without building their own capabilities, have ended up screwing their own industrial capabilities, because indigenous companies couldn't get a chance to stand on their feet and compete with their foreign counterparts. I repeat, today we have decent industrial capabilities and global companies of our own because they got a chance to develop their expertise and capital in a protected economy.

Further, government run organizations could provide cheaper/subsidized goods & services like electricity, fertilizers, etc. to certain priority sectors of a starving India, that couldn't be done with private/foreign companies. And if you think subsidies are outdated idea, then I would suggest you to check how much subsidies USA provides to its agriculture sector.


Nehru was not way off the mark with his economic policies, a few things could have been different, but overall it was suitable for India of that time, and still relevant in many ways in modern India. Those who blame him for his socialist mindset has little knowledge about both socialism and capitalism, more often than not they equate socialism with communism, and often forget that the capitalist countries like USA and many European countries are more socialist than India in many ways, but that's another debate.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

You are trying to judge Nehru's economic policies of a newly liberated India of 1947-1964 from the worldview of 21st century India.

Why there was government intervention in private sector?

After independence we were critically short of capital, resources were scarce, and the idea was to make optimum use of the scarce resources in critically important sectors and avoiding duplication of investment in one place, the idea was to build the nation.

Now, is this an obsolete idea in modern India? HELL NO!! Take a couple of examples:

Example 1: Recently Chandra Shekhar Ghosh's Bandhan got a banking licence to open a new bank in India. Who were in the race to get the licence? All the BIG names of corporate India you can think of, TATA, Birla, Ambanis, L&T, Bajaj, etc.etc. Have you ever heard of Chandra Shekhar Ghosh and his organization Bandhan? I guess no. Then how did he got the licence beating all the Goliaths? Because his organization has the expertise of working in rural India in Micro-finance business, and RBI wanted the new banks to enhance the banking and micro-finance network in rural India for the economic betterment of rural India, they even have the clause that mandates the new banks to open branches majorly in rural India and not in a already over-serviced cities. Sounds similar to what Nehru thought?

Example 2: Our private sector telecom companies have an obligation and set target of expanding rural telecommunication network, failing which they have to pay certain amount of penalties that goes into a separate account with BSNL to enable BSNL to fulfill the obligation. Government still make sure that private sector is also fulfilling certain social responsibilities and contributing to nation building, and not solely into profit making.


Apart from optimum utilization of scarce capital and resources, another reason for intervention (if you call it intervention) was to provide the private sector crucial knowledge, expertise and also incentives in specific sectors to help them set up their businesses in those sectors, as well as contribute in nation building. Even today government provides these benefits to private sector companies in specific sectors, even today government decides prices of certain commodities even for private sector companies, Nehru's economic policies are still relevant in Modi's India.


About your question on foreign investments in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, how much industrialized they are today compared to India? How many of their companies are global now compared to India? Look around the world, almost all the third-world underdeveloped non-European nations of that period, who opened their markets to stronger foreign companies without building their own capabilities, have ended up screwing their own industrial capabilities, because indigenous companies couldn't get a chance to stand on their feet and compete with their foreign counterparts. I repeat, today we have decent industrial capabilities and global companies of our own because they got a chance to develop their expertise and capital in a protected economy.

Further, government run organizations could provide cheaper/subsidized goods & services like electricity, fertilizers, etc. to certain priority sectors of a starving India, that couldn't be done with private/foreign companies. And if you think subsidies are outdated idea, then I would suggest you to check how much subsidies USA provides to its agriculture sector.


Nehru was not way off the mark with his economic policies, a few things could have been different, but overall it was suitable for India of that time, and still relevant in many ways in modern India. Those who blame him for his socialist mindset has little knowledge about both socialism and capitalism, more often than not they equate socialism with communism, and often forget that the capitalist countries like USA and many European countries are more socialist than India in many ways, but that's another debate.

Again you are pointing out the good sides of a socialist system in a nascent Republic of India. My problem is NOT with that. I also support the big state sponsored projects in the steel mills and infrastructure in the 50s. Hell, I would support that to an extent even in 21st century India.

Check the Industrial Policy of 1948(that stated about a mixed economy) and compare it with the First Five Year Plan. Then compare it with the Second Five Year Plan(that killed chances of new a Private Enterprise). You will see the economy went steadily from socialist to Soviet. The rewards of the system was reaped by Indira.

Our goal should have been heavy Government investment into heavy industries, infrastructure, health etc and at the same time encourage private investment. Instead we killed the later.

Breaking Free of Nehru: Let's Unleash India! - Sanjeev Sabhlok - Google Books

The Government even took away the Fundamental Right to Personal Property!
In our zeal to see the light of socialism flourish, we completely killed and not just regulated Private works. Yes, barring some exceptions.

South Korea is a good example of a mixed economy in its nascent years (same period).

"Those who blame him for his socialist mindset has little knowledge about both socialism and capitalism"

That pretty much ends the possibility of any further discussion ...thanks.
I believe this post of yours calls for a rating.

 

[dray]

Your complaints have been repeated since the beginning of the RSS or the latter Sangh parivar. After independence, the Hindu right did exist. But what was its popular appeal? Practically nil.

Sangh Parivaar ideologies didn't become popular today because of Nehru's policies, otherwise they would have become popular back then.

They became popular because of the spectacular failure of the previous UPA government, people rejected them and supported Modi, and to support Modi many also ended up supporting Sangh Parivaar ideologies.

If UPA was spectacularly successful and Rahul was a great leader, then today many people would have supported Congress and its dynastic politics with equal zeal. Similarly, if Modi government fails to deliver on economy and development parameters, all these support for Sangh Parivaar ideologies will vanish along with the support for Modi.

Also the rise of radical Islam and associated global terrorism in recent years helped Sangh Parivaar ideologies to gain some support base in India for its 'tit-for-tat' approach.

1. They are Indians. If they lag behind, they drag us all down. For an inclusive society, we need to move forward together. Otherwise it's pointless. The difference in social levels was instrumental in Partition 1.0 .

2. A personal law is just one example of the discrepancy. There are a hundred other reasons. This thread will be spammed if I elaborate.

3. No, it does not go beyond tokenism. The existing madrasas is a vibrant example. What good is a madrasa Board, you tell me. Do we cry for not having a Hindu Board or a Sikh board of education? What good is a madrasa graduate - other than a handful of maulanas and the Waqf boards? How many millions 'graduate' every year without a source of livelihood? Who will give them jobs? The education is just one example. There are plenty of similar issues. In fact in some cases the appeasement goes to shameless levels - the Imam stipend in West Bengal for example. The turning of the Shah Bano verdict was another.

As for the appeasement politics nothing beyond tokenism - it is even worse. Even if the extra laws had benefited the Muslims, and they truly prospered, perhaps they would have torn down the inequalities. Instead the present system provides incentive to cunning Islamist politicians while actually keeping the public in a permanent state of victimhood to claim more benefits.

This is the reason why @scorpionx called you 'smart'! You want us to believe that Sangh Parivaar is really bothered about the betterment and progress of Muslim society and their demand for Uniform Civil Code is for that noble purpose!

I know that Muslim Personal Laws are biased against women and denying many rights to Muslim women, their Madrasa education is outdated and needs immediate modernization. But consultation with the Muslim society is the way to go to bring about any positive change, in any case they are mostly skeptical about BJP, so have a series of dialogue and convince them that it is for their good instead of creating a social unrest. You cannot force a society to change if they are not willing to change. In any case nowadays even Muslims in cities are not going to madrasas, those who can afford are going to private schools.

Point I am making is we are not a secular state, and we should stop pretending to be one.

If we are not a truly secular state, then we should try to become one for our own good.

Also you did not give me any major enterprise that was established in the reign of Nehru, without any Govt. investment?

Am I supposed to? Didn't I say private sector lacked capital in those days and incapable of doing much? That's why government investment in large industries was necessary! There were private companies, but most of them were not in a position to set up major enterprises, barring a few like TATA, Birla, Mafatlal, Wadia, etc.

 

[asad71]

O' c'mon don't boar us with talk of so called secularism in India. Not after voting a Butcher of Muslims to dictatorial power.

 

[Levina]

O' c'mon don't boar us with talk of so called secularism in India. Not after voting a Butcher of Muslims to dictatorial power.

prove it!!!

He's elected to one of the highest positions in India and had what you accused him of was true then he would not have achieved such a landslide victory.

 

[asad71]

prove it!!!

He's elected to one of the highest positions in India and had what you accused him of was true then he would not have achieved such a landslide victory.

That Modi is a Butcher has been well documented in Indian media and courts of law. USA and Western nations had declared him a persona non grata.

 

[dray]

Again you are pointing out the good sides of a socialist system in a nascent Republic of India. My problem is NOT with that. I also support the big state sponsored projects in the steel mills and infrastructure in the 50s. Hell, I would support that to an extent even in 21st century India.

Check the Industrial Policy of 1948(that stated about a mixed economy) and compare it with the First Five Year Plan. Then compare it with the Second Five Year Plan(that killed chances of new a Private Enterprise). You will see the economy went steadily from socialist to Soviet. The rewards of the system was reaped by Indira.

Our goal should have been heavy Government investment into heavy industries, infrastructure, health etc and at the same time encourage private investment. Instead we killed the later.

Breaking Free of Nehru: Let's Unleash India! - Sanjeev Sabhlok - Google Books

The Government even took away the Fundamental Right to Personal Property!
In our zeal to see the light of socialism flourish, we completely killed and not just regulated Private works. Yes, barring some exceptions.

South Korea is a good example of a mixed economy in its nascent years (same period).


That pretty much ends the possibility of any further discussion ...thanks.
I believe this post of yours calls for a rating.

Do you really think that our private sector companies were flushed with investable funds to start with? And you have misunderstood the Fundamental Right to Personal Property as described in you links, did those business houses that I have mentioned above lost their properties to government, did ordinary people lost their houses and businesses? There were Land Ceiling Act and Land Reforms that in a way took away personal rights on land beyond a certain limit, but I see it positively as it ended the era of feudal lords, something that Pakistan failed to do, I can't help it if you found that objectionable.

 

[Levina]

That Modi is a Butcher has been well documented in Indian media

Court clears Narendra Modi in riots case

And this should prove you wrong...

 

[dray]

prove it!!!

He's elected to one of the highest positions in India and had what you accused him of was true then he would not have achieved such a landslide victory.

Leave him alone, the last thing we want is a "Certificate of Secularism" from him or his country.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Sangh Parivaar ideologies didn't become popular today because of Nehru's policies, otherwise they would have become popular back then.

They became popular because of the spectacular failure of the previous UPA government, people rejected them and supported Modi, and to support Modi many also ended up supporting Sangh Parivaar ideologies.

If UPA was spectacularly successful and Rahul was a great leader, then today many people would have supported Congress and its dynastic politics with equal zeal. Similarly, if Modi government fails to deliver on economy and development parameters, all these support for Sangh Parivaar ideologies will vanish along with the support for Modi.

Also the rise of radical Islam and associated global terrorism in recent years helped Sangh Parivaar ideologies to gain some support base in India for its 'tit-for-tat' approach.

This is the reason why @scorpionx called you 'smart'! You want us to believe that Sangh Parivaar is really bothered about the betterment and progress of Muslim society and their demand for Uniform Civil Code is for that noble purpose!

I know that Muslim Personal Laws are biased against women and denying many rights to Muslim women, their Madrasa education is outdated and needs immediate modernization. But consultation with the Muslim society is the way to go to bring about any positive change, in any case they are mostly skeptical about BJP, so have a series of dialogue and convince them that it is for their good instead of creating a social unrest. You cannot force a society to change if they are not willing to change. In any case nowadays even Muslims in cities are not going to madrasas, those who can afford are going to private schools.

If we are not a truly secular state, then we should try to become one for our own good.

Am I supposed to? Didn't I say private sector lacked capital in those days and incapable of doing much? That's why government investment in large industries was necessary! There were private companies, but most of them were not in a position to set up major enterprises, barring a few like TATA, Birla, Mafatlal, Wadia, etc.

Most of it are baseless accusations. Lack of capital is an absurd suggestion. Anyway...You are entitled to your ideological beliefs.

Second you attempt to belittle the Sangh. That is acceptable and also necessary, helps in introspection.

Third, I am not exactly smart. I am the devil.

Now coming back to the topic.
Land reforms was agreed to in 1948, no problems there.

Then you reach the topic - Nehru. As per the economic sector answer one question - was it right to completely remove the Fundamental Right to Property? I am asking as a layman, since I know 'nothing about either capitalism or socialism'.

In any case the failed economic model is there in all its glory - the bones are now turning to dust... This did not happen in the 21st century. The rot started as soon as it was implemented...it took time to reach a stage where a Financial emergency was even considered! Anyway, it is our good fortune that the failed model has been uprooted more or less by the N.Rao Govt. (actually it began a little earlier, but anyway). As long as economists take the lead in running the economy its fine, if it falls into the hands of politicians...

Reminds me of a Manekshaw quote, while meeting Indira - "You run your business(Govt), while I run mine(army)."

Bottomline: Please don't quote me on this subject, as you consider me incompetent in this regard. Which is fine by me.

 

[dray]

Most of it are baseless accusations. Lack of capital is an absurd suggestion. Anyway...You are entitled to your ideological beliefs.

Second you attempt to belittle the Sangh. That is acceptable and also necessary, helps in introspection.

Third, I am not exactly smart. I am the devil.

Now coming back to the topic.
Land reforms was agreed to in 1948, no problems there.

Then you reach the topic - Nehru. As per the economic sector answer one question - was it right to completely remove the Fundamental Right to Property? I am asking as a layman, since I know 'nothing about either capitalism or socialism'.

In any case the failed economic model is there in all its glory - the bones are now turning to dust... This did not happen in the 21st century. The rot started as soon as it was implemented...it took time to reach a stage where a Financial emergency was even considered! Anyway, it is our good fortune that the failed model has been uprooted more or less by the N.Rao Govt. (actually it began a little earlier, but anyway). As long as economists take the lead in running the economy its fine, if it falls into the hands of politicians...

Reminds me of a Manekshaw quote, while meeting Indira - "You run your business(Govt), while I run mine(army)."

Bottomline: Please don't quote me on this subject, as you consider me incompetent in this regard. Which is fine by me.

I am a lot confused to learn that 'lack of capital' was an absurd suggestion or impossibility (that you wrote first, and edited) in newly independent India, maybe you are right, British must have left us rich. However, I thought 'lack of capital' was not a suggestion but a fact.

And I don't completely believe in any ideology, ideology blocks minds with pre-conceived notions and hampers logical thinking. There are positive and negative aspects of different ideologies or "Ism"s, if you are talking about socialism & capitalism, then each has its pros & cons and many nations including capitalist west is already following a hybrid of both. For me, I can speak for and against both the 'ism's depending upon the context, you can't box me into any of it.

Major damage to our economy was done by Indira, rampant nationalization, licence raj, emergency, she damaged the economy with her regressive policies, otherwise we could have started liberalization 10 years ago.

I would be obliged if you can elaborate your understanding of the "complete removal of the Fundamental Right to Property" that you are repeating in last few posts, preferably with specific examples of the major problems it created, I have given you long detailed replies with examples, as promised, now it is my turn to have some specific real world examples in return.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I am a lot confused to learn that 'lack of capital' was an absurd suggestion or impossibility (that you wrote first, and edited) in newly independent India, maybe you are right, British must have left us rich. However, I thought 'lack of capital' was not a suggestion but a fact.

And I don't completely believe in any ideology, ideology blocks minds with pre-conceived notions and hampers logical thinking. There are positive and negative aspects of different ideologies or "Ism"s, if you are talking about socialism & capitalism, then each has its pros & cons and many nations including capitalist west is already following a hybrid of both. For me, I can speak for and against both the 'ism's depending upon the context, you can't box me into any of it.

Major damage to our economy was done by Indira, rampant nationalization, licence raj, emergency, she damaged the economy with her regressive policies, otherwise we could have started liberalization 10 years ago.

I would be obliged if you can elaborate your understanding of the "complete removal of the Fundamental Right to Property" that you are repeating in last few posts, preferably with specific examples of the major problems it created, I have given you long detailed replies with examples, as promised, now it is my turn to have some specific real world examples in return.

Jeez, no .. I gave the quotes with books. With great effort I found one on the Internet and posted a couple of posts back. The seeds were planted by Nehru and reaped by Indira.

EDIT - Nothing is an impossibility. 'absurd' was a more apt word.

 

[dray]

Jeez, no .. I gave the quotes with books. With great effort I found one on the Internet and posted a couple of posts back. The seeds were planted by Nehru and reaped by Indira.

EDIT - Nothing is an impossibility. 'absurd' was a more apt word.

And the book complained about land reforms!

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And the book complained about land reforms!

I support land reforms. Not limitless. The land grab from the jagirdaars, even forcefully, was justified. Totally. But the rest. We got blinded then. By the shining socialist example. Just like we made mistakes chasing the American dream in the recent past. We should look for moderation - this country is too diverse and complex to follow a single rule.