History in the post-World War II era

India After Colonialism

India is one of those countries that exhibit the most promise in terms of economic growth and presence in the international community. On the surface, it appears that if there is one third world nation that has truly benefited from lifting of British rule, it is India. There is consistent increase in its GDP, the economy is steadily growing and foreign investors have shown confidence in India's economic infrastructure and indigenous products are found in abundance.

But that is all you can see on the shining surface. Beneath the obvious, however, lies a flood of ugly and disillusioning disparities. Unemployment is rampant; corruption in political and economic circles is inexorable, and poverty is a pervasive issue. It is important to see where exactly India stands today to understand if independence was actually a wiser option.

Economy of India has been growing and has definitely expanded in more than 55 years after the independence. People from lower income groups have managed to escape clutches of poverty and many have found a respectable social status. But the number of people who could accomplish this task is marginal compared to the overall population and the population that still lives below the poverty line. The fact that there exists a close connection between the state official and country's elite has undoubtedly limited the ability or power of ordinary man to rise socially. This has had a negative impact on productivity and has also "dampened the possible multiplier effects on employment and incomes from expanded production, thereby denying the underprivileged sections of society opportunities to improve their economic and social conditions."(1)

India's economy may be growing but it cannot deny the existence of external debt that is weighing on its economic structure. Between 1990 and 1997, India's external debt trebled as it rose from about 1 trillion Rupees ($27 billion) in 1990 to 3.3 trillion Rupees ($92.2 billion) in March 1997. Internal and external debts are also negatively affecting country's per capita income. Indian economist Arun Ghosh assessed the debt situation of India and wrote, "...like the proverbial Indian cultivator, mortgaging all his assets (and his future labor) to the indigenous money lender, the Indian state is indebted to the hilt, its entire revenue being earmarked for debt repayment."(2) In order to make it possible to generate enough capital to use in debt servicing, India has to depend heavily on IMF and the World Bank which is forcing the government to offer damaging concessions to attract foreign investors. Ghosh observed, "The management of the economy over July 1991 to December 1995 appears to have increased the country's economic vulnerability and significantly reduced future policy options and maneuverability."(3)

Poverty is another major issue which is closely tied to economic elite's connection with state officials and ordinary person's lack of access to country's resources. According to a survey by the National Council of Applied Economic Research in January 1997, it was found that at least 40% of India's population lived below the poverty line and there was another 30% that lied barely above it. (4)

The government is inefficient and incapable of dealing with rising poverty and unemployment. This is mainly grounded in government's denial of actual economic and social conditions of the country. It appears that either the government officials are completely unaware of the situation in the country or they are hell-bent on ignoring the truth that's staring them in the face. This is clear from following statement of former Prime Minister Rao when he began one of his speeches by "delineating the social structures into three segments. The crust, according to him, consists of about six crore (1 crore= 10 million) people, who do not need to be canvassed about economic reforms. The next layer contains 25-30 crore people belonging to the middle classes, who are beginning to appreciate the benefits of liberalization. It is the next segment, of 55-60 crore of lower income and poor people who remain unappreciative of the changes in the economy."(5)

The political structure itself is not exactly wrong. The party-system has worked in favor of people by generating more awareness about country's social and economic issues. However this system has been used to brutally maim the entire country, its people, its economy and almost everything else. India's democracy is more or less a sham as Dreze and Sen argued:

It is in terms of these broader egalitarian concerns that India's record has been most disappointing and that the scope for action may be particularly extensive.... The importance of local democracy is not confined, of course, to this issue of public services, or other instrumental roles of intrinsic value for the quality of life. Indeed being able to do something not only for oneself is one of the elementary freedoms which people have reason to value. The popular appeal of many social movements in India confirms that this basic capability is highly valued even among people who had very deprived lives in material terms. (6)