Initiatives
of every state, ultimately aim at the well being of the society. It is always measured
by the quality of life of its individuals. Since independence, India as a
nation has been ‘working’ at it. Given the present scenario, increasing
momentum of the rich-poor divide and failing light of our governance (secular
democracy), there are serious doubts whether we are running on the right track.
Hence, here we do an elementary conceptual clarification in the light of the
writings of Amartya Sen, on the subject. Right understanding at least would
point us the right direction. We have chosen, Sen precisely because he aims at
a holistic development of the society, by eradicating poverty, inequality,
violence, and injustice; most importantly, because he is an
enlightened-impartial-insider. He knows best the on-going struggle between the
system and situation of our country.
1. Overall
impression of our country, with industrialization, increasing urbanization, and
westernization in education, culture, economics and life-style, is that India
is growing into a good future. But there are hick-ups in such pride at the face
of the miserable poor Indians. It is becoming clear that there is something
wrong with our development projects. What is true development? Can a
development neglect a group of people?
Development is not mere economic growth. It is
narrow to identify development with the growth of gross national product, with
the rise of personal incomes, with industrialization, with technological
advance, or with social modernization. This does not downplay their role in
achieving development, but they are not all. Growth is not the same thing as development.
Development, on the contrary, is a process of expanding the real freedoms that
people enjoy like the freedom to live, to make a livelihood, to enjoy good
health, to express one’s opinion, to become literate, and to pursue happiness.
Economic growth are important means to expanding this freedom but it is also
determined by social arrangements, political freedoms, protective security,
civil rights etc. Hence development is larger and more holistic project than
economic growth. Development is development of all people, no exclusion or
exclusive agendas. It is built on equality and justice.
2. There is a
great stress on freedom. It looks development is all about freedom of the
people. We are free, aren’t we? Explain.
One
that surprises people about Sen is the connection he draws between development
and freedom. We are so used to development identified with economic growth, and
freedom reserved for the memories of the ‘struggle for independence’ and ‘moral
action’, Sen’s explanation seems queer. Whenever Sen speaks about freedom he speaks
about the real choices a person can make to lead the kind of life one has
reasons to value. The choice necessarily involves dynamics between individual
entitlement and socio-economic-political system. Freedom thus, becomes the
quintessence of our life. One who suffers poverty is economically unfree, the
oppressed minority experiences denial of religious freedom, the illiterate,
impoverished, the dispossessed, those who suffer malnutrition, are similarly
unfree in different areas that together contribute to a quality of life. They
are intrinsically related and affect one another. Development therefore
requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poor economic
opportunities, repressive systems, neglect of public facilities,
irresponsibility, corrupt governance etc.
3. In this
process of development what is the role of the state and the individual?
The
state would provide adequate social opportunities (and awareness about the
quality of life) with which the individual can effectively shape their destiny
and help each other. He is not mere passive recipient but an active agent of
transformation.
4. The problem
precisely is the ‘unjust functioning of the state’. With democracy the
development project of post-independent India is limping compared to our
neighbours (South Korea and China). We are almost tempted to follow their
example. Is democracy effective for
development?
Our
doubts are based on the working style of democracy in India. Much needs to be
done to make it work for the integral development of the ordinary people. Regarding the question about the effectiveness of
democratic system, we need to make plain that true development is about
enhancing the real freedoms. In this sense, development cannot but be achieved only
in a democratic system. This is proved in the strong inclination of
non-democratic nation to institute democracy. It is true that Indian democracy
has been less effective in eliminating undernourishments, illiteracy, poverty
and infant-birth mortalities compared to China.
The blame is not on the system but in our participation. ‘In a
democracy’ Sen writes, ‘people tend to get what they demand and more crucially,
do not typically get what they do not demand’. If we note the post independent
democratic India does not have a record famine unlike the colonial India. The
secret is the public discussion and politicization that revolves around the
issue. Such uproar has to be done with regard to poverty and other related
regular maladies. This, however, requires deeper analysis and systematic work.
5. Democracy in
the context of rising communalism in different parts of India is frightening.
Ultimately it is a majority rule. With growing communalized election campaigns
unlike the past, the future of minority in India is bleak. Would minority in
India survive a fascist democracy?
Democracy
is the answer for fascism. While on the one hand there is the danger of
sectarian politics, it does not go through at all times and in all places. In
states like Orissa and Gujarat the communal hatred, violence and politics has
been accomplished due to the suppression of media and the critics through a
sort of autocratic governance. It is important also to note the low literacy
rates in these states (with poor formation of mind) hence have become easy prey
to the communal agendas. Amidst all that menace, there were storis of
protection and defense of minority by people with sound mind. Sen would always
note that democracy is not majority rule, it is tolerance, respect and
equality. Hence tolerance towards minority views and criticisms is an integral
part of democracy. Fascist democracy is a contradiction, it is not democracy.
6. Involuntary
displacement in the name of development despite their dissent and protest has
become the ‘Indian style’ of economic growth in the modern world. In the name
of development we have bulldozed several tribal traditions, cultures in our
country. Can we paralyse a group in the
name of wellbeing of the country?
People’s
participation is crucial to development. As mentioned earlier, the individual
is an active agent in the process of development. Freedom to express one’s
opinion and defend the concerns is a capability. Therefore every economic development
project that could possibly result in a severe damage to the livelihood of the
people of the locality, more so their tradition, culture and land, it has to be
done only with their informed consent. The people directly involved should be
part of the decision about what should be chosen: the project or the tradition,
culture and land. Deciding otherwise does jeopardizes the very goal of
development.
7. Has Sen
written anything about the socio-economic situation in India, recently?
Yes.
Outlook has an essay “Putting Growth in its Place” jointly published by Sen and
Jean Dreze, Nov 2011. May be we can read some excerpts from it.
“There
is, in India, an urgent need for greater attention to the destructive aspects
of growth including environmental plunder (e.g. through razing of forests,
indiscriminate mining, depletion of groundwater, drying of rivers and massacre
of fauna) and involuntary displacement of communities – particularly adivasi
communities that have strong roots in a particular ecosystem.”
“…it
would be mistake to ‘sit back’ and rely on economic growth per se to transform
the living condition of the unprivileged.”
“There
is, in fact, no real barrier in India in combining multi-party democratic
governance with active social intervention. But what would be needed is much
greater public engagement with the central demands of justice and development
through more vigorous democratic practice.”
Bibliography:
Development
as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Reason
Before Identity: The Romanes Lecture for 1998. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
The
Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment