Why Right is Right for India, economically and socially

Generally political leanings are classified as lying somewhere on the continuous spectrum between left and  right.  An accurate description of right and left is actually two dimensional, with both economic and social aspects. The Congress Party, under the Nehru Gandhi family leadership, which has governed India for most of the past 66 years since independence, has always been of left of center orientation in both economic and social terms. In the 1920s,  Nehru, later to be the first prime-minister of India, visited the Soviet Union and became an avid admirer of soviet style Marxism. It took an explicit threat of expulsion from congress by Gandhi himself to persuade him to go easy on communism. After independence, with the early death of both Gandhi and Patel, Nehru got a free hand and started turning India into a socialist state,  famous for what was derisively called the "Hindu rate of Growth". His daughter, grandson and  grand daughter-in-law have in turn deepened the socialist mooring of the country. Indira Gandhi even went to the extent of amending Indian Constitution to insert "socialism" into its preamble. On the social side too, the Nehru-Gandhi family have followed a philosophy of multiculturalism, which implies accepting and indirectly strengthening sub-national identities within the society by promoting differentiated citizenship i.e. application of different laws and privileges to different subnationalities. The only exception in this legacy is prime ministerial term of P.V. Narsimha Rao, which can be considered an  aberration, since it was the only congress government with no overt or covert control of the first family. The other Indian regional and caste based political outfits can also be broadly classified to occupy similar ideological territory. The  right on the other hand always has had a very minimal representation in Indian polity, C Rajgopalachari's (Rajaji)  Swatantra party being the only exception. Though the Swatantra (Freedom) party even in it's heyday had limited success in electoral politics having at the peak only 44 legislators in Lok Sabha of 1968-71, it came to constitute the primary opposition to Congress during this period.

Past two decades have seen the slow but steady rise of  BJP in electoral politics, and it has now come to occupy the primary right-wing space in India, and is destined to act as a challenge not only to the Congress, but also  to all other regional and  special issue parties (like AAP) which are distinctly leftist in orientation. The social right, which essentially constitutes belief in social conservativeness and preservation of  traditional cultural values, coupled with promotion of distinctive Indian nationhood has always been represented by the BJP since inception. On the economic front however, in spite of positive reformist credentials of NDA 1, BJP has never been openly committed to capitalism. Even in NDA 1 the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, the economic affiliate of the Sangh Parivar, raised a strong dissenting voice and fought to temper the reformist and free-market agenda of the Government. The rise of Narendra Modi for the first time puts the BJP unequivocally into the economically and socially rightist camp, and also for the first time provides India with a viable socially-conservative and economically-liberal alternative. Narendra Modi's credentials towards economic right is unambiguously displayed no only in the economic vision laid down in his speeches but also in his record in Gujarat.

Free market capitalism is the only economic philosophy which has been empirically proven time and again to succeed in improving the economic well-being and quality of life of pre-industrial societies like India. As I have argued in one of my previous post on AAP,  such an orientation is even more important for the poorer sections of society than the middle classes. Since spread of education is still limited in India in both quality and coverage, large scale investment in manufacturing and other low-skill labor intensive industry is the only sustainable way  to create ample number of jobs and eradicate poverty. There is a broad consensus on this in most academic and policy research circles now, with minor variations in thrust and priority. There are of course is a pro-redistribution camp which pay lip-service to economic liberalism, and lends some confusion to the debate. This is best typified by the spat between the Columbia professors Panagariya/ Bhagwati  on one hand and Amartya Sen/Dreze on other. The later pair however have little credibility now, having been contributors to Sonia's NAC over past ten years and hence indirectly responsible for the current economic mess. Panagariya/Bhagwati have argued growth vs redistribution argument very well in a series of books like India: The Emerging Giant and Why Growth Matters. Since the economic side of argument is well understood, let me move on to the social aspect of right.

India is an old civilization but a new republic. It is also on path to evolving into as  modern and developed nation. For this it is imperative that people evolve a common sense of identity. This shared identity can only be based on something I like to call Indic culture. Despite the diversity, all Indians share a commonality of culture, ultimately derived from a long and shared  history.  This shared mythology,  philosophy, language, values and culture provide a substratum on which such a common identity can be built. Though role of religion is often overstated by alarmists in this context,  religious exclusivity of identities is not a feature of India traditions from ancient times, in a fashion very similar to other east asian cultures like Japan and China. Even the term hindutva, though considered as sectarian by some, is essentially defined by the supreme court judgement as all ideas, thoughts, philosophy and cultural habits that have evolved in the subcontinent. In olden days, besides the  Dharmic faiths like Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, Indian  Muslims were also labelled as Hindus. So the debate here essentially more about nomenclature and semantics than anything else.

As for the other option of Liberalism and Socialism, I have come to observe that Indian left is in practice both intellectually dishonest and at continued dissonance with truth. Its continual overcompensation to the possibility of bias towards traditional opinion, has resulted it in travelling in direction opposite even in respect to its own ideals. Even in its unsullied form, liberalism is based on a  belief in universal values of humanism, and in considers the primacy of individual before the community. But like all idealism it doesn't take enough consideration of the deep need of people to identify with and belong to groups and communities. Since man is not all logic, but emotion as well, social structures need to utilize the positive aspects of group identities to provide the binding force and emotional energy required for  collaborative effort. Patriotism is one of the expressions of such an identity, and enables man to altruistically collaborate with his fellow man and work towards common good. Such a common identification also reduces possibility of conflict.

Both centripetal for right and centrifugal forces of left exist in all countries. Though truth is usually not at extremities, and both have elements of truth and need to be in balance for continued evolution, my argument is that India at this moment needs a rightward turn. This would  reduce conflict and focus energies towards modernizing and transforming it into a prosperous and developed nation. On the other hand, to keep denying Indic Civilization, and continue on the path of multiculturalism and differentiated citizenship as the primary philosophy is to accentuate differences and dissipate the energy of people in continued conflict and competition. This kind of differentiated citizenship is also and incentive for social groups to stay fixed in orthodoxy, since benefits and privilege get tied to identities and harden them. Though with time and rising prosperity the hold of religion and community is going to loosen, and individuality is likely to increase, at this moment it is imperative that Indians develop shared value systems. And though this end may not always be possible and should never be forced, it is goal worthy of pursuit.

Direct Democracy: Snake Oil that sells well.

The call for referendums and direct voter input on a host of issues by few political parties  raises an important question of relevance of referendums in functioning of the government. Besides anti-corruption, direct democracy has been one of the major planks many political reform  movements over the world. It is a old and much-debated concept, even though it not often come into prominence in India . This is primarily due to the big scales involved in India due to its large population and also due to limits imposed by lack of technology. However now that the technology, by the means of mobile phones and internet availability across large sections of the populace looks set to make it feasible soon, it may well be pertinent to analyze other philosophical questions involved.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language." 

-  Ludwig Wittgenstein

Let us first start by looking at the often confused concepts of "direct democracy" and somewhat related, though different concept, best called "local self-governance". Local self-governance implies the mode of administration and citizen feedback wherein local communities at village level or block level may be involved in decision making for issue of concern limited to the local community itself.  I would circumscribe this concept further by limiting it to areas of administration for which a larger collaboration or impact beyond local-community may not been involved and direct visibility of the activities on ground would be available with the citizens. As a general principle, it is good to decentralize wherever possible, and with this circumscribed definition, I think local-self governance a good idea, which is already partially implemented in villages through Panchayats and in cities through RWA's, though exacts mechanism and workings can be further refined and improved. 

On the other hand "direct democracy", especially in context of referendums, refers to the  practice of taking the will and opinion of people by majority vote at a much larger scale of a country or a state and utilizing this for effective decision making. This has sometimes been resorted to for big decisions at national level e.g. referendum for separation of Quebec in Canada, but seldom for more regular policy decisions and with good reason.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

- Winston Churchill.

Unlike how Indian politicians extol  the virtues of democracy and the intelligence of the voter, let us take a considered view of whether democracy in terms of universal adult franchise is the best form of government and, if so, why. There is a view with some people that a benevolent and wise dictator or would be much more effective in ensuring the progress and well-being of a country than any democratic setup can be. Though partly true, this is a simplistic view of things which fails to consider issues of sustainability and feedback. Firstly, there may not be that many certifiably benevolent dictators graciously making themselves available to us. And even fewer among them could be guaranteed to stay benevolent after attaining despotic power which we plan to confer upon them. Secondly, and more importantly any dictator or council of dictators, would lack one key enabling function which makes democratically elected government the only form of government which has consistently succeeded in past century.This is the power of feedback. Feedback to those managing the institution of government from those on whose behalf the institution is managed, is by definition only available in an electoral democracy, and however slow or partial , it is essential for making any government effective.

India and most big democracies have chosen to have representative form of democracy which relies on electorally chosen leadership and not electoral decision making. The principles of representative democracy in Indian constitution and direct democracy are hence fundamentally different. Direct democracy expects people to have well formed opinion on a host of issues that are important in their daily lives. For each of these issue people's consent maybe asked for by direct polling, and based on majority view a particular course of action adopted. Since direction on any one issues is necessarily interlinked with direction on many others, people can tend to support mutually contradictory goals in different referendums, since they may often fail to realize the underlying interconnections. This was visible when people voted for free power in Delhi elections, while not considering how incorrect pricing has very adverse impact on availability of electricity as shown in over past several few decades. Likewise poeple would vote for lower taxes at the same time expecting more government spending and social safety nets.

On the other hand representative government expects a single person or party to evolve a coherent set of ideas and policies which taken together intend to fulfill the goal that the electorate has in mind. Since all policies are decided together by a set of specialists with a common ideological leaning, the policies are not expected to be self-contradictory. The policies proposed may or may not appear to fulfill the desired goals, but different parties can propose different set of strategies and compete for voter attention. The voter doesn't chose policies or plans a-la-carte but whole ideologies (coherent set of ideas) which best appeals to him. Even on issues of which he may not have sufficient knowledge, the voter may chose the ideas based on trustworthiness of individuals proposing them and their past record of success. Hence this manner of decision making not only leads to coherence in policy making, it also allows for the voter to entrust  decision making for matters involving specialist knowledge he may not possess himself to the people he trusts.  Also, any policies or principles involved in governance may require time to show results. Representative democracy gives adequate time for those policies to come to fruition and delays feedback sufficiently to make the feedback meaningful.

 "Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus."

  - Martin Luther King

Lastly, the idea of leadership in electoral democracy is not only about following public opinion but molding public opinion. The public is of-course free to get convinced or otherwise. A leader with no conviction of his own, except for following majority public opinion, is not a leader in true sense of the word. The progressive and reformist Hindu Code Bills would never have been passed if Nehru and Ambedkar had only cared for Public Opinion. Nor would the 1990s reforms by Narsimha Rao Government have taken place.

To conclude, the two contradictory requirements of close feedback  and coherent policy and effective decision making need to be reconciled. Representative democracy is a balance between autocracy without feedback, and direct democracy without coherence and effectiveness. Asking for referendum for each and every policy decision can only lead to chaos, and is unlikely to gain credence despite any current or future technological enablers.