PM's Independence Day Speech

I listened to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech on India’s 68^th Independence Day. Here I elaborate some of the points in the speech which I find inspiring for India’s growth. Modi’s emphasis on Shastra instead of Shastra (both words can be written same in English but their pronunciation and meaning in Sanskrit and Hindi – in which Modi delivered his speech – will be different: one is, for the sake of differentiation, Shaastra – meaning broadly book of knowledge and wisdom and the other is Shastra – meaning weapons) is the need of the time. Not only India and other countries in South Asia, but also most parts of the world, are affected by violence. Whether it is militancy and terrorism in India, or the Maoist problem in its east and south, or the problems in Afghanistan, or West Asia, or former Soviet space – all are marked by bloodshed. Geo-strategies and power politics have further contributed to bloodshed. The wisdom from the great books can guide us towards peace. It is time to give up guns and cultivate the inner virtues of human beings.

The replacement of a gun by a plough on the shoulder of a militant will cause much good to India, Modi believes. I believe in this too. We have seen many guns, wars, fear of guns, and their consequences. Guns have not resolved conflicts, not provided food and not brought peace and security to a nation-state or the globe. Now the time is for peace and economic development without the aid of a gun. I hope Modi will follow this principle while making decisions and implementing them.

The prime minister vigorously pitched for a India which has all means for economic development. He specially appealed to the youth of India. Here, it was the pro-business, pro-development, Modi was at his best. Modi is known for using new slogans. For the development of India, for increasing its exports, he gave a two-fold slogan ‘zero-defect, zero effect.’ He called the entrepreneurs, including the young entrepreneurs of India, to bring India’s name to the front not as an importer but as an exporter of qualitative goods. Zero defect implies that goods must be produced without any defect; they should be of best quality. This will ensure India’s global prestige as a quality goods producer. Any defect will bring bad name to India. Similarly, Modi called for production and export of goods which have least negative effect on environment. They should not prove environmental hazards.

As a tech-savvy politician, who uses social media for publicity of his policies and actions, Modi gave the call for transforming India into a ‘digital India.’ A digital India will cure many of the evils from which the Indian political system suffers. The idea of digital India also includes the idea of e-governance, which for the prime minister not only implies easy governance but also good governance. I agree with the prime minister that much of the red-tapism, which haunts India’s governance system, will go away if digital governance is practiced. India has required technological expertise to usher in digital governance. It has perhaps the largest number of IT professionals than any other country in the world. Hence, it is absolutely possible to embark on e-governance, which will cater to the needs of the people without the aid of the middlemen.

To fight the menace of middlemen, the prime minister announced a program under which money from government will directly reach the needy. Without such a provision there is rampant corruption in welfare programs launched by the government. Go to any village and talk to the people below poverty line, they will tell you clearly how they have suffered in the hands of the middlemen. Whether is rural employment guarantee scheme, or old age pension, Indira Awas Yojana (in fact there are many welfare programs, which were certainly initiated with the aim of helping the poor), the hapless victims are the rural poor who have no recourse to justice against corrupt middlemen. Under the new program announced by Modi, a recipient of welfare benefits will have a bank account to which government will send money directly. The recipient will have a debit card to withdraw money easily. The prime minister rightly pointed out an irony that there are people in India who have mobile phones but not bank accounts. The governor of India’s central bank, Reserve Bank of India, has also made a resolve to fight crony capitalism. The new program will help fulfill this resolve.

About gender insensitivity and discrimination against women, the prime minister made a strong pitch for gender equality in all walks of life. Drawing from the tradition, he urged the parents to give moral education to their children. He rightly pointed out the rapist is somebody’s son. I agree with him that moral education by parents can help develop the character of a child and make him a responsible citizen of the country. Modi argued against female feticide and cited the recent Commonwealth Games in UK in which women got a good number of medals. Women and men are equal and there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender, the prime minister appealed to the people of India.

Modi also pointed out other evils that eat into the vitals of an emerging India. The main among them include communalism and casteism. He appealed to the people of India to rise above these evils and fight them collectively. He cited a Sanskrit hymn that we should walk together. It is when we think and work collectively as a nation that many of the problems we confront will wither away. He applied the same yardstick to other evils such as corruption. Selfishness is the main mover of corruption. One should not only think about his ‘self’ but also the ‘self’ of the society, of India as a whole. Here comes to my mind the Gandhian dictum: the nature has for everybody’s need but not for anybody’s greed. The famous Gandhian talisman read: when an individual is in confusion as to whether he should take a particular action, he should think about the most miserable person on the earth he has seen and think whether the action he is confused about will help that person. If the answer is yes, he should initiate that action otherwise not. Perhaps Modi has in his mind this talisman when he urged the people of India to think of India as a whole, as one family. 

Modi also evoked the spirit of Gandhi when he was talking about cleanliness. India is one of the dirty countries in the world. Go to any city, town or public places, or to India’s rivers, the sight says it all. Modi said, we are going to celebrate Gandhi’s 150^th birth anniversary in near future, but we must remember Gandhi’s emphasis on hygiene. He rightly pointed out that government will not be able to carry out this mission without the support of the citizens. He is right in this. Government is of the people and for the people and by the people. Without the support of citizens, the government efforts will be vain. The people must take care of their house and make it clean, and the same logic they need to apply to their neighborhood, and public spaces like parks, markets, tanks and rivers. Unless this happens, India will remain dirty and dispel the investor who wants to invest in India, dispel a person who wants to be an India lover and wants to say India is my home.

Besides Gandhi, Modi also evoked the names of Maharshi Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda. In his message on India’s first Independence Day in 1947 Maharshi Aurobindo had elaborated his five dreams. Among them included a strong and vibrant India, and emergence of India not only as a developed and harmonious nation-state but also as a teacher (Guru) of the world. Swami Vivekananda gave the call to the youth of India to march ceaselessly till the goal is reached. It may not be an exaggeration to say that Modi drew heavily from India’s rich cultural and spiritual heritage while speaking from the Red Fort. 

Kashmir Back in New Delhi’s Radar

Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, made his maiden visit to Jammu and Kashmir on 4 July 2014. While inaugurating the rail link from Jammu to Katra, the prime minister said, “Today Jammu and Kashmir will get both speed and energy. I am inaugurating this and a power project later today.” The prime minister’s emphasis on speed and energy is significant for peace and development in Kashmir.

The train from Jammu to Katra may symbolize speed but the deliberate choice of this term implies more. Modi is perhaps the first prime minister of India who visited the conflict-torn state even before completing two months in office. This is an indication of seriousness of the new government to prioritize Kashmir. Known for his pro-development initiatives and his passion for speedy implementation of development policies, Modi’s visit to Kashmir and emphasis on peace and prosperity in the region needs to be viewed in a new light. While the root causes of the conflict demands a deeper reflection and matching actions – understandably which will take more time and energy, the recent visit conveys the message that the development process needs to be expedited in the region. It should not be made hostage to rivalries between stakeholders to the conflict. The visit will add sinew to the scattered peace efforts initiated a decade earlier.

Modi appears determined to add energy to the peace process. At 63, he is younger than his predecessor. His pro-business policies may encourage the private business to invest in Kashmir, particularly in infrastructure projects such as roads and railways, and power. For sustainable development of the region, the participation of private players is an imperative. Violence has affected the prospects of development in the region, thereby discouraging private investment and creating obstacles against effective implementation of the developmental policies. Though people-centric development is not a sure shot for peace, it can help foster peace in a violence prone, and underdeveloped, region. It is indubitable that the protracted conflict needs more than development initiatives. But, undeniably, lack of development in the region has contributed to discontent and alienation in the region. This can not, and should not, be ignored.

Modi’s policies have demonstrated that he believes in speedy execution of even tough policies. The recent hike in rail fares by his government is such an example. His visit to J&K reflects the sense of urgency to address the complex issues the region has been seized with. Though his visit to the region was protested by the separatists groups in the region and his party’s demand for a debate on Article 370 (guaranteeing special status to the region) has drawn flak from many quarters, his government’s proactive nature in Kashmir is undeniable. Reports suggest his government is planning to evolve a framework to address the hitherto neglected issue of the return and rehabilitation of the displaced Kashmir Pandits. The displaced Pandits in the Kashmir valley left their native place in late 1980s with the onset of militancy. The extremist elements may not welcome the move as it will hurt their agenda of an exclusivist Kashmir (particularly the valley) though the majority of Kashmiri people including the separatists have welcomed the initiative.

It is no surprise that on the occasion of Modi’s visit, an umbrella group of radical organizations in Kashmir, Majlis Itihad-e-Milat, threatened to sabotage his government’s plan to rehabilitate the displaced Pandits. The issue is sensitive and it needs a proper assessment since any hasty resettlement may worsen the already fragile situation, particularly in the Kashmir valley. Akin to a speeding vehicle, Modi’s speed in Kashmir may go way ward if it does not follow the rules of road, i.e. overlooking the concerns of the local people and the issues that are deeply embedded in the conflict. The Chief Minister of the state, Omar Abdullah, in a veiled reference to India’s policies, argued, Kashmir cannot be won by money or muscle power. Abdullah’s utterance has a value as it reflects sentiments of sections of the people in the valley.

Modi’s attempts at simultaneously taking forward peace process and development programs in Kashmir will not be smooth. India has not only to address the concerns of the alienated sections within Kashmir but also to negotiate effectively with Pakistan. However, Modi’s peace and development initiatives have won him many supporters in and outside the region. Any sincere attempt, howsoever miniscule, to address the grievances of alienated people needs to be applauded. But, how far Modi led government in New Delhi will be able to sustain speed and energy and address the concerns of the people of Kashmir remain to be seen.

(Published in Transcend Media Weekly)

Will Modi and Sharif revive Lahore?

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif was one of the first leaders to congratulate Narendra Modi when his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won the elections in May 2014. Modi invited Sharif to attend the swearing in ceremony at the forecourt of Indian Presidential palace in New Delhi on 26 May 2014. The national and international media widely covered the interactions between the two prime ministers.

Fifteen years ago, in 1999, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had visited Lahore, the cultural capital of Pakistan, on the invitation of Prime Minister Sharif. During the visit both the leaders had signed the Lahore Declaration to promote bilateral relations. Sharif and Vajpayee shared a vision of peaceful and stable South Asia, only to be scuttled few months later due to the Kargil war and the military coup in Pakistan.

Will Modi and Sharif revive the spirit of Lahore?

Modi and Sharif share many common traits. Sharif is a businessman turned politician and Modi is known for his pro-business policies during his twelve year-old rule in the Western India state of Gujarat. Sharif returned to power after a gap of 14 years in 2013. Modi’s political party, BJP will be in power after a gap of 10 years. Both Sharif and Modi are in their early 60s. They are young, dynamic and perceived effective. Their support base differs from their previous regimes – the rule of Pakistan People’s Party suffered from bickering and opacity and the rule of Indian National Congress led United Progressive Alliance suffered from lethargy. Modi and Sharif enjoy a strong support base with an absolute majority in their legislatures and are capable of taking strong decisions.

But Modi is not Vajpayee. While Vajpayee was popular in Pakistan for his peace overtures, Modi is known for the communal riots that took place in Gujarat in 2002 during his rule. The riots killed more Muslims than Hindus. Though Indian courts have not found any evidence to convict him, he continues to be perceived anti-Muslim by sections of people. Modi throughout his electoral campaign stayed away from invoking religion and mainly won on a plank of development. His party gained 282 seats in 543-member lower house, a feat no party achieved since 1984. If his electoral utterances are taken seriously, Modi as Prime Minister of India will take an inclusive approach towards development and towards developing relations with Pakistan.

During an interview early this month to an Indian TV channel Modi argued that Pakistan must rein in extremist networks to revive the peace process. The hardliners in Pakistan dislike Modi and will use every opportunity to create havoc in Indo-Pak relations. It will be no surprise if the extremists in Pakistan repeat a 2008 Mumbai style attack to invoke a hard line response from the new government. Unlike his mentor, Vajpayee, who during the Kargil War of 1999, ordered the troops not to cross the Line of Control (the de facto border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir), Modi may react differently. Any hijacking of foreign policy by the hardliners in India and Pakistan brings to mind the horrors of war between the two nuclear weapon powered nations.

Modi and Sharif will prefer to cooperate than to conflict as the initial exchange between the two leaders indicates. In his reply to Sharif’s wishes, Modi talked about poverty, a common problem in the region, and his resolve to fight it. Both are known for pro-business and pro-development policies and this can be a common ground for developing bilateral relations. Modi during his rule in Gujarat made high profile invitations to business houses for investment. Some of the top Indian business houses invested in Gujarat during his rule. When Tata’s famous low cost car Nano’s proposed factory was stalled in the eastern state of West Bengal, Modi invited the industrial unit to Gujarat.

The businessman turned politician Sharif will be interested to cultivate the shared interest in bilateral trade. Pakistan in December 2013 postponed the granting of most favored nation status to India. Sharif may now consider the time ripe for granting the status. This can be a welcome gesture to start with. Before India’s elections, Sharif in February had made the case for flexible cross-border trade. Hence, it is likely that economics will dominate the relations between the two neighbors with eventual easing of tensions in areas of conflict such as Kashmir.

The lack of bilateral trust is a major roadblock against peace. Modi and Sharif can address the deficit. It is generally during election times that politicians ratchet up religious and nationalistic passions to win the electorate. As both the leaders are well ensconced in power, they can use the opportunity to nurture close relations.

Barring the 2002 scar, Modi’s image in India is that of a transparent and strong leader. Similarly, Sharif’s image in Pakistan is not sullied as that of some of his predecessors. Though adorned the post of prime minister for a decade, Modi’s predecessor Singh did not possess the actual power of the office as it was concentrated outside. Modi will not suffer from that handicap. He will be able to take decisions and implement them. During his election campaigns Modi harped on his vision of taking along all Indians to build a strong and developed India. If Modi is guided by this inclusive vision, it will be on expected lines that India-Pakistan relations will gain meat, and Modi will follow in footsteps of his mentor. But, if Modi cavorts to hard line tunes of sections of his party, the bilateral relations may plunge further low. The new mandate provides Modi the opportunity to bring on track the derailed relations between India and Pakistan. In this peace tango, Sharif can be his matching partner.

(Published in eposweb.org) 

New Dispensation in New Delhi

The absolute majority of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Narendra Damodar Modi, in the lower house of Indian parliament has made international news. It is the first time since 1947 when India got independence that a political party other than the Congress secured absolute majority in the lower house.

The media mostly reminds Modi, the Prime Minister-designate, of the 2002 riots and offers advice. Some of the writings have expressed doubt whether Modi will rise above his association with a Hindu organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and put India before his religion and party.

Modi emerged from a humble background. His father was a tea seller. He does not speak British or American English, and not a regular in Delhi elite circles. He was a RSS pracharak. But the membership of RSS does not make one fundamentalist. RSS is guided by Hindu philosophy, which is eclectic. Also, one can not club all RSS members into same mould. Modi’s mentors, Vajapyee and Advani, are known for their association with the RSS. Vajpayee is known as a moderate in politics. The point is association with RSS does not make one fundamentalist.

Barring the scar of 2002, Modi has no taint. Though sections of people believe his complicity in the communal riots in Gujarat when he was the chief minister, the judicial system in India has not found fault with him.

Modi has strong views, unlike Manmohan Singh who preferred to remain silent on many crucial issues. Whether Telecom scam or Commonwealth Games scam, Singh did not exercise his power his office bestowed on him. It was but natural as he had not the real command. The party high command had the baton of power. Modi will not have that handicap. The elections were fought under his leadership. Manmohan Singh did not rise as a politician from the grassroots; rather the prime ministership was thrust on him, while in case of Modi it is different. Manmohan Singh, a celebrated economist known as father of India’s economic reforms left office of PM in ignominy. This is sad for his political legacy, but certainly he will be remembered as one of India’s best brains, which could have been used more effectively.

I remember the famous debate between the two well known economists – Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati. Bhagwati was a protagonist of Gujarat model of development, while Sen was not. The first one prioritized rapid industrialization and private sector development, while Sen’s model focused on a society-oriented inclusive economic growth. Both models have their merits and demerits. The point is that Congress government under Singh followed Sen’s advice and launched welfare programs (marred by massive corruption), but the electorate of India preferred to vote for Modi.

It is yet to be seen how Modi will replicate the Gujarat model for the country. The people of India, particularly the youth, have high hopes on him.

Some of the great Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were from Gujarat, the home state of Modi. Some of the great saints like Narsinh Mehta, who wrote famous Vaishnav Jana to Tene Kahiye (Gandhi’s favorite) were from Gujarat. Mehta and another saint-poet Kavi Jayachandra, also from Gujarat, had influenced Gandhi and shaped his life philosophy.  Modi particularly talks about Patel, and is apparently influenced by him. Patel was known as Iron Man of India as he played a key role in assimilating disparate regions of India into one single federal union during early years of India’s independence. Will Modi follow Patel’s footsteps?

As Prime Minister, Modi will lead India, not a particular community or religion. Hence, he is not only a leader of Hindu, but also of Muslim or of any other community in India. Pessimists will always bring back the specter of Godhra and paint him black. But, I am not in a hurry to see Modi in that way. I am an optimist, and will prefer to wait and watch.

Modi has the advantages which some of his predecessors lacked. He does not have a dynasty to promote, or not an immediate family to bestow largesse. In that sense, he will be more like Vajpayee who once commented that it is good that he has no family. He said this as a retort to corrupt politicians who put family before the country. Modi will not fill the seats of his official aero plane a la Deve Gowda who flew whole family with him during some of his official trips. Modi will not have to pay bribes to parliamentarians to support his party during no confidence motions as he enjoys absolute majority in the lower house of the parliament, the decisive body for no confidence. He will not have to indulge in horse-trading (a code name for breaking other parties to win majority), nor he will have the need to engage in scams and forgeries.

Modi is known as an effective administrator in Gujarat. One hopes that he will be an effective administrator in New Delhi. His lack of aristocratic mien will be to his advantage.

Modi’s years in New Delhi will be challenging. Any Mumbai style attack coordinated by hardliners from Pakistan will be a big headache for him. While his Pak counterpart, businessman-turned politician, Nawaz Sharif will prefer to work with him, the hardliners in Pakistan will do everything to scuttle the process. They will plan to orchestrate terrorist attacks to generate a violent response from Modi to further paint him anti-Muslim.

As Prime Minister, Modi will have to take decisive actions on matters home as well as abroad. He should not only be acting above religious bias, but also needs to be seen so. Perhaps he needs to be apprised by his officials the messages from The Prince, written by Machiavelli. The key message – the King (read the person in power) must not only be benevolent towards his subjects, he must also be seen benevolent. Already the Godhra aligned with him, any utterance of M word, will be interpreted differently. To address this, he may have to be innovative. He may have a ministry on communal harmony led by Muqtar Abbas Naqvi, or a cell in his office on it led by religious leaders of all communities. Learning from other models may be useful. Akbar’s Din-E-Elahi is perhaps a good model. Modi can take a cue from it. Even otherwise, there is ample guidance from Sanskrit texts: Sarva Dharma Sambhava and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam are two messages which any leader wishing to rule multiethnic and pluralistic societies needs to learn.

India has poverty, unemployment, environmental pollution, population explosion, rising Maoism, communal violence, extremism and terrorism, women insecurity and many other problems. Modi knows all these problems, and has promised to address them. It will take time. It is naive to expect that he will successfully address all these problems in one month. One important thing that Modi needs to do is to appoint persons of merit and vision, not sycophants nor corrupt, to high offices. There is no lack of talent in India, and Modi will be able to find enough merit in India to assist him in the mission to raise India to new heights.

Here, I remember the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo who on the eve of India’s independence in 1947 had articulated his five dreams. The fourth dream was India’s role as moral and spiritual conscience of the world. Sri Aurobindo had in his mind the cultural and spiritual capital of India and its transformative power to reshape the human society. It needs emphasis this cultural and spiritual capital is not purely Hindu or purely Muslim, but Indian, rising from thousands of years of India’s rich historical and cultural heritage despite all its deformities. Modi may take a leaf from Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Swami Vivekananda. Both had argued India is a pluralistic society, and emphasized on synthesis. One of them had talked about the need of Hindu intellect and Muslim valor.

Modi can also prove Maulana Azad and Nehru right. Jinnah argued that Hindus and Muslims are different nations; hence they need to have different nation-states. Nehru and Azad had argued differently. They had strongly argued that India is a multicultural and pluralistic country in which Hindus and Muslims can stay together. Modi’s policies need to reflect this pluralistic ethos. During his electoral campaigns Modi promised to take all Indians together along with him. And he needs to fulfill that promise while in office.

Whether dealing with internal or external challenges, Modi will have to tread cautiously. Pakistan will be a big challenge. China will be another one. China-Pakistan nexus has not always proved beneficial for India, and Modi has to keep in mind that. While Russia has proved a traditional friend of India, Modi has to devise strategies to balance relations with Russia with that of the USA. Though the USA denied visa to Modi earlier, now it will be interested to deal with Modi, the leader of the largest democracy and also of one of the fastest rising economies. He may also revive the campaign for India’s claim for permanent membership at the United Nations Security Council, the highest and most powerful international body.

Modi will have a better tool in his hand to lift the nation from the morass of poverty and unemployment – two biggest internal challenges. With a strong determination, and by combining the visions of Patel, Shastri and Vajpayee, Modi will be able to trudge through difficult terrains while keeping his mission high.

I wish Modi good luck!

Contending Visions of Development in India, more Political than Economic

As India’s general elections will take place in less than a year to elect a new government in New Delhi, political parties with support from noted economists have ratcheted up rival visions of development. Though this trend could be visible in all general elections, the forthcoming election has witnessed an unprecedented uptick of participation by noted economists.

Intense debates about India’s growth are not something new as such debates have taken place since independence. While India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru called industries as ‘temples of modern India,’ his political mentor Mahatma Gandhi was against industrialization and believed in village swaraj (self-rule). Post-independence India had witnessed the influence of Gandhi’s ideas. Nehru followed a middle path, called ‘mixed economy,’ under which heavy industries remained under state control, while small scale industries were left to private initiatives. The impact of Soviet five-year plans was evident on Indian economic strategy in those years. The preamble to India’s constitution also proclaimed India to be a ‘socialist’ country. Nehru’s thinking led to the establishment of many heavy industries and particularly under the second five-year plan, also called the Mohalanobis model, many heavy industries were established in different parts of India.

This mixed economy model was largely pursued till the late 1980s. Both India andChina followed socialist models of growth. China’s opening of its economy for private sector and foreign investment in late 1970s under Deng Xiaoping led it to grow at a faster rate, while India’s economic growth tottered at a lower single digit level with slogans such as ‘garibi hatao’ (eliminate poverty) occupying center stage in policy making.

It was only in the early 1990s when India underwent an acute financial crisis that it opened its economy. It was under the stewardship of then Finance Minister, currently Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh that India invited foreign capital, provided incentives to private sectors, ended quota-permit raj, and as a result in a span of one decade India’s growth story was not only India’s story, but also a story of a rising power with Indian companies like Tata, Reliance, Bharti, etc making names and investments around the world. While in 1991 India’s foreign exchange reserves stood at $1.2 billion, in 2013 the number was more than $280 billion. India’s growth story, however, was blighted by massive corruption, indecisiveness of its leaders and internal problems.

Ahead of the forthcoming elections noted economists have argued about the most appropriate model for the country and hence have deliberately or inadvertently are linked themselves to the ideology of one or the other political party. Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate and professor at Harvard University, argued in his book Development as Freedom that development does not merely imply the building of industries or foreign exchange reserves but also the penetration of fruits of development to all layers of society including the poor and marginalized. He further argued that unless human capabilities are developed, a state cannot attain levels of just and fair growth. His academic rivals Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, professors at ColumbiaUniversity, may not disagree with Sen on this point, but they sharply disagree as to how to achieve such a goal.

The debate between the noted economists can be characterized by the dilemma as to which came first, egg or chick? The Bhagwati-Pangariya duo would argue that investment in industries, infrastructure, etc. would propel growth with positive impact on the government’s welfare activities, as growth in these sectors will have its trickle down effect. Sen would argue that without development of capabilities in terms of education, health, and the alleviation of poverty, development will not be just and fair. It will lead to asymmetrical development with the rich becoming richer, and poor becoming poorer. Bhagwati and Panagariya have a different view on this. While Sen termed India’s recent growth story as ‘uncertain,’ as reflected in the title of his recent co-authored book Uncertain Glory, an indirect reference to India’s growth story, the Columbia University professors have taken a positive approach to India’s growth story in their recent book Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries.

The intellectual debates are politicized or are being appropriated by political parties. The current debate between these two rival groups is about the efficacy of the ‘Bihar model’ (with which Sen has sympathies) and ‘Gujarat model’ (with which Bhagwati and Panagariya have sympathies). Both Indian states have witnessed growth. But, it is not the question of which model of development that has raised the debate to such a charged atmosphere; rather it is the political implications of these debates and their likely impact on electorates. Bihar the north Indian state is ruled by a regional political party called Janata Dal Untied (JD- U), and led by Nitish Kumar, whileGujarat the west Indian state, ruled by a national party called Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The state is led by Narendra Modi. Both JD-U and BJP were allies for the last 17 years till June this year. At present Kumar is a strong critic of Modi and criticizes his secular credentials for the Gujarat riots of 2002 that led to killing of more than a thousand Muslims. Interestingly, Kumar praised Modi’s leadership in 2003 in a speech, within a year of the riots.

Times have changed with changing aspirations. Both Kumar and Modi are now aspiring to play pivotal roles in Indian politics beyond their states. While Modi is seen as prime ministerial candidate of the BJP in forthcoming elections, Kumar has kept his political cards close to his chest though his aspirations are not hidden. The current ruling party in India , the Indian National Congress (INC) is an arch-rival of BJP; hence it has welcomed the separation of JD-U from BJP. While the economists have raised fruitful debates about India’s growth, the politicization of these debates have actually tapered much of intellectual stamina of these debates.

Published in http://blogs.umb.edu/paxblog/ on 30 July 2013