From: sgs@ucs.usl.edu (Sudhindranath SG)
Subject: Re: Why does India always miss the bus, YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE.
Keywords: India, Nehru, Socialism, Economy.
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:41:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.191339.17121@csrd.uiuc.edu> ghosh@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sanjoy Ghosh) writes:
>(Sudhindranath Sira G) writes:
>
>>Correct me here if I am wrong but I feel that the economic structure
>>of China  has undergone such a major change since the days of
>>Mao that if Mao were to look at it today, he would not be able
>>to recognize it as _his_ model. Contrast this with the Indian 
>>scenario.
>
>Thanks but that is not where I will correct you, because that happens
>to be where you ain't wrong.  But where I will correct you is in not
>taking your own advice.  Go right ahead, use your own advice and do
>as much contrasting as your heart pleases.  Its been at least twenty
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>years since Nehru was around to impose his economics on the poor 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>uneducated masses who didn't know any better.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What we must bear in mind is that Nehru was in power for _seventeen years_ 
and those years were the formative years of independent India's
economy.  Even though many years have passed by since, the period
of Nehru's leadership were crucial in that they decided what _direction_ 
the economy took.

>Why hasn't the economic 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>scene changed so much that if all the turning in his grave that he 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>would be doing, would cause him to spring out of it, he would not be 
>able to recognize the Indian economy as his model.
>

The main reason for this is that political power remained in the hands
of the Nehru family for too long. So, there was a kind of commitment
to Nehruvian ideology and his policies all along. In addition, whoever 
came to power were either idiotic (Nehru) or crooked (Indira Gandhi) 
or both (Rajiv Gandhi). This only made matters worse.

>I don't think the blame for the past twenty years can be put on his 
>grave since his shoulders aren't around to shoulder it.  
>

Is there any reason to believe that Nehru would have approved
of _any_ change in the economic set-up of India even after 
seventeen years of feedback ? Is there any evidence that he was disappointed 
with the way the economy was run ? I don't think so. So it is reasonable to
presume that he favoured continuing the same policies. And indeed
continue we did, and this is where we stand now. 

It is true that we had the time and the opportunity to correct ourselves, 
but we didn't. My point is that the course we took was the one that 
Nehru not only approved of but also supported passionately. In addition, 
he occupied the most powerful position in the country for such a long time. 
He was instrumental in determining which way the country went. Why is it 
unreasonable to blame him for the things that went wrong ?

>Besides, policies that are not good for India today were not necessarily 
>bad for the country in his day.  Today, a leader might be judged by how
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>much the number of VCRs per capita increased during his tenure, whereas
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>back then a more pertinent criterion might be the number of grams of rice 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>per capita.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^
>I think, it is unfair to judge the leaders of that era by 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Pepsified standards of today.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't agree with your opinion that the criterion of judging a leader 
has changed.  As far as India is concerned, the criterion has always been 
(and unfortunately still is) the "number of grams of rice per capita", 
as you put it. It is not only unfair but also ridiculous to judge an
Indian leader by "Pepsified standards". We have already made such
a blunder in judging Rajiv Gandhi's "leadership qualities" and the
economic "growth" of India during his reign. I don't see any reason 
why we should apply such standards in the Indian context. It is 
meaningless to talk of Pepsi when a vast majority of our countrymen don't
have access to safe drinking water!

>A leader reflects both the mood and the needs of his people.  

Assuming that this was true in the Indian context, may I ask why 
there wasn't any major change in the bureaucratic set-up that we 
inherited from the British ? Why don't we, till this day, have an 
administration that is responsive to the people's needs ? Why does
the administration treat our people in the same way that the Britishers
treated them ? Why ? Because our great leader was in a world of his own, 
daydreaming all the time, thinking of the day when "milk and honey will 
flow in the gutters of India"(sic). The people who succeeded him (his
daughter and grandson) were no better either.

>Since both of those have changed since his days, 
>it is not right to judge him by today's yardstick.
>

As I said before, the yardstick hasn't changed much over the years.
If anything, it has become shorter. Since our needs were never met, 
they still remain the same as they were 45 years ago...

>Sanjoy Ghosh

Regards,

--Sudhi.

-- 
*********************************************************************
Sira Gopinath Sudhindranath. 
email : sudhi@usl.edu, sgs@ucs.usl.edu
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian