Copyright@shravancharitymission
By Kamlesh Tripathi
It is said, competition
is good for consumers, but how about competition in politics? Where, I am
reminded of what Indira Gandhi once said,
‘My grandfather once
told me that there were two kinds of people: those who do the work and those
who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was much
less competition there.’
She indeed
was one of the tallest leaders of the Congress party, and even that of India,
who could even dare to dismembered a neighbouring country. Therefore, if we
superimpose her quote on the tenets of Congress Party or for that matter on any
other political party it will be an interesting churning of inferences.
Before
India attained freedom there were thirteen political parties that jointly fought
the British Raj for independence, with Congress in the forefront. The focus
then was not development, but to attain independence. Where, they competed and
colluded in a smart manner and achieved it. Post independence some of these
parties wound up as the mission was over, and some dissolved in each other. Congress
then became the tallest party with practically no opposition. Muslim League the
other powerful party was more or less hived off to Pakistan upon partition.
Congress thereafter ruled for around fifty six years. But in these years they
could have done much better than what they actually did. On the contrary they
brought in the ‘License Raj’ post independence that only stifled the progress and
development of the country and only benefited the few in power. So can one say
political stability attracts development?
License Raj was dissolved when P.V. Narasimha
Rao in 1991 took over as the Prime Minister with Dr Manmohan Singh as his
Finance Minister in a Congress Government. Thereon, things started looking up
in India. But by then the coalition politics had also come into play. No single
party was ruling the roost. Competition had set in, and every political party
had to perform on economic parameters too, apart from the usual socialistic ones.
The voter’s aspiration had also increased with the spread of literacy.
-
If we go through
India’s GDP in absolute numbers we find in 1950-51 it was 2.79 lac crores that
reached 20 lac crores in 1991-92 (15% annual growth for 40 years). But, was
that enough when we were starting from a very low plank? This grew to 57.41 lac
crores by 2013-14 (8.90% annual growth for 21 years). When the environment had
become much more challenging. These growths were also facilitated by growth in
population.
-
If we briefly analyse the annual growth of India’s GDP at
factor cost again. In 40 years, starting 1951-52 to 1991-92. We will find.
Thrice it showed negative growth, and in 79-80, after thirty years of
independence it even went down to -5.2%, which is shameful. In fact growth
started steadying above 5% only after 91-92 when competition amongst political
parties had increased even within the coalition governments. And also when
policies of open economy had set in.
-
In 1950-51 the food grain production was 50.83 million
tonnes. In 1991-92 it reached 180 million tonnes. An increase of 129.47 million
tonnes (an annual growth rate of 6.36%). This could have been much better, had
the economy been opened in the 70’s, which the Congress government didn’t
bother to do. By the year 2013-14 production reached 263.2 million tonnes. An
increase of 83.2 million tonnes since 1992 (a 2.20% annual growth rate). That
goes to show political competition lost focus on agriculture.
-
In the infrastructure sector. Construction of roads, (both
surfaced and non-surfaced) picked up a steady pace only after 2008-09. After
political competition started heating up in India and the same goes for exports
which too picked up post 2003.
The
US is the world’s largest economy. There are two main parties, the Republicans
and the Democrats. They follow each other close on heels on various issues. Yet,
in the last two decades, like in the case of many other developed nations, its
growth rate has been decreasing. If in the 50’s and 60’s the average growth
rate was above 4 percent, in the 70’s and 80’s it dropped to 3 percent. In the
last ten years, the average rate has been below 2 percent and since the second
quarter of 2000 has never reached the 5 percent level. So has political stability
in American politics helped the growth rate? Or is it that the continuing good
sound policies of the government is driving growth, irrespective of which party
rules, or is it that there is no politics over growth?
In India we have seven national parties
that include BJP, INC, CPI (Marxist), CPI India, BSP, TMC and the NSP. In
addition we also have forty eight state parties. There is enough competition on
the ground but whether it is helping development, is the big question. There is
no firm paradigm of continuous fast track of development. That only goes to prove
political competition may not mean development in India.
So, sadly
India has seen both the extremes. One, when Congress was stable and virtually
in a monopoly for 56 years. When sadly there was only a steady, self
complimenting and complacent development, and nothing exponential, which was
what was required. And even now when you have a number of political parties on
the ground, the development is dismal and that too at the cost of corruption
that we saw in Congress UPA regime. Somehow, BJP has been able to reverse this
trend because it is in full majority and politically stable, and its top
leadership is averse to corruption. Needless, to say political parties are competing
not for development, but for retention of power. This reflects glaringly in
Uttar Pradesh.
Uttar
Pradesh the political hot seat of India has BJP, SP, BSP and Congress as main
parties on the ground. In the past there were five prime ministers also who
represented UP, apart from Dr Manmohan who also was under the command and
control of the first family of Indian politics who also are supposedly from UP.
Yet UP is where it was some forty years back. Despite, being the cradle of
civilization, and the cynosure of every era. Today, UP is poor hungry,
unemployed, illiterate and is one of the most prominent members of the Bimaru
states of India.
In
six and a half decades of independence, India has grown manifold in population,
but sparsely in infrastructure. But some states have grown faster than others
and that’s where UP has lagged behind. UP is still way behind Kerala, Gujarat,
Punjab and Haryana.
So
then what went wrong especially after independence and where did UP drop the
ball? It was one of independent India’s most prosperous states. It kept growing
till 1980s, from a steady growth in the beginning of the 1st five
year plan in 1951 till the 1980s. UP has also seen frequent change of guard and
therefore most certainly is a victim of political competition.
So then
what is good for India? Political stability or political competition? There are
no straight answers, but I found an appropriate quote that can act as a
solution—‘stop competing with others, start competing with
yourself.
*****
|
|
|||||
