The 'even
after 60 years' argument is something that has come up in the last
few years in India. The argument made is that not much has happened,
socio-economically, in India since its independence in 1947. This
show of disaffection is usually made by the erudite in their well
appointed homes as the discussion veers on what the Congress I has
done since Nehru and what the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will do
with Modi. Those propounding this argument cannot see the incongruity
staring in their face as they make these arguments. Simple things –
they own more than one car, they live in well appointed homes, they
holiday abroad, their work takes them abroad, the food and drink that
they serve comes from varied parts of the nation and the world, they
are able to translate their concern for the environment and for the
downtrodden into something tangible.
This in 60
years! Okay 67 years.
The 60
year argument would have held water if it were being put forth by one
of the many millions who are poor in India. They have a grouse which
no one can deny – they are still poor, their access to facilities
is still limited, their future does not seem to be in their grasp.
But for the others, 'what is curdling their milk'?
So why does this argument have takers? There are many
reasons, the ones that appear to be most prominent are –
comparisons with developed nations, loss of traditional social
structures, arguments that make initial superficial sense and
historical grandiosity.
Comparisons with developed nations and others
The fact
that we are a product (or are reaping the benefits) of what India as
a country has achieved socially, educationally, technologically and
politically in '60 years' is conveniently forgotten. We also are
oblivious that it is these socio-economic achievements that have
given people the wherewithal to compare the country's progress with
other nations.
Comparisons
are made to Singapore, China, South Korea and even to the US. One
chooses to forget that these nations are either smaller, have
different forms of political-economies, are homogeneous or have had a
century or more of a head start.
This
desire 'to keep up with the Joneses' is less to do with what the
Joneses have achieved. It has to do with a belief of being at par with
them in the ability, opportunity and situational section. So, the
resentment is of not being able to achieve what the other has
achieved, of falling short and being embarrassed when they compare
themselves to others.
It is
human nature to build on small successes. It is also human to inflate
ability and therefore be ambitious and so reach for the stars. A
taste of economic growth whets our appetite for more. That we have
learned to 'walk' gives rise to our belief that there is an untapped potential to immediately be able to leap. This supposed ability is
made all the more real when comparisons are made with those who we
think have grown out of the same miasma as we and who are now fleet-footed.
People
accept arguments that make initial superficial sense
I
came to realise the potency of such arguments when discussing the
healthcare system in India. The person said that the healthcare
system immediately post independence was far better than what it is
today. Who would argue with such an observation when debating India's
sixty years? On the
face of it, it sounds true; not only because I wasnt there to
experience the healthcare system then, but also because this
statement was coming from an expert . Not to mention the constant
news of the floundering public health care system in the country
adding a ring of truth to the possibility that the past was rosier.
After having recovered from this googly, the unspoken truth
emerges, the population was less, the variety of diseases were fewer,
the avenues for disease were less - there was no such thing as
'lifestyle diseases'. But the life expectancy then was around 32
years, children died of small pox and thousands were infected with
guinea worm while polio marred the future of millions.
Hmmmm! The fact that life expectancy has increased to 65 if not more
today, or that polio and small pox have been eradicated suggests
something; doesn't it?
There is no doubt that much has yet to be done, but just because much
has to be done one cant ignore what has been accomplished.
Historical
grandiosity and loss of traditional class structures
Some Indians love to live and promote the historical past, because
there is no way to corroborate it. It gives those expounding on it
limitless liberty to wax eloquent. It is easy to enchant people with
the spell of the past and of regaining this lands lost 'glory' because there is no set definition of it. There is no list of requirements that have to be
ticked to arrive to the conclusion and certify that the glory of the
past has now been achieved. So people are sucked into one large
amorphous “the ruler was just and kind, the subjects were good and
fair, the economy was rich, the population was skilled and happy and
there was peace and contentment.”
This seems to be a wonderland when compared to today -where people
oppose dynastic politics, where the hold of the oppressive and rigid
caste system has been shattered through education, where people
demand their rights and more, where the poor can become rich, where
the seemingly powerless have a hold on the powerful, where there are
no subjects but citizens.
There is little wonder that the progress of the 60 years leaves some
disconcerted and they wish to sell a version of history where they
will be safe.
Can we deny how feudal our democratic country is? It is not only seen
by the swords given to our politicians during public rallies, but
also in how we address citizens whose forefathers belonged to the
feudal set, even if these citizens are democratically elected
representatives today.
The past which we are so proud of and cling so dearly to because our
ancestors held positions of status is no longer relevant today.
Democracy is giving everybody equal rights, today we are all
accountable to somebody, we can no longer dictate terms and expect
servility in response. The class system that held back people while
ensuring others remained in positions of power is being broken.
The stranglehold of lineage is being demolished, and therefore the
angst of 'even after 60 years'. Equality does not bring with it
equanimity of acceptance of a new social order.
Economic growth leads to a churning of the social order, it will
make the past seem more enchanting to some. The truth is if the past, sold disingenuously to generate disaffection, were so rosy it would have remained with us in the present as a
reality and not as a construct of someone's uncorroborated memory.
-------------------------------------
Look out for my soon to be published travelogue ’1400 bananas, 76 towns and 1 million people'
