These trends and processes have ebbed and flowed haphazardly and have their bright and dark sides. Overall, however, they have metamorphosed India into a country far removed from the one that gained independence in 1947. Their cumulative effect has been to shift the hubs of power, influence and authority away from entrenched positions towards other hubs that rarely, if ever, figured in the debates of the phalanx of distinguished men and women who framed the Constitution.
The first shift has been from the Centre to the states. Its initial intimations came from the demands for the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines in the early 1950s. But the Congress’s domination of the political system was such that few questioned its long-term impact on the federal structure. One early pointer to this impact was the election of a Communist government in Kerala in 1957 and its subsequent dismissal. But Congress hegemony received a first major jolt when it suffered defeat in several state elections in 1967. Indira Gandhi sought to contain the threat of further emasculation when she split the party in 1969. But the threat escalated. Her riposte was to impose a state of Emergency in June 1975.
One collateral gain from this trend is that Article 356 of the Constitution—that allows the Centre to dismiss a state government—can no longer be used summarily, the way it once was until the late 1980s. Another gain has been that national parties like the Congress and the BJP, which favoured something akin to a unitary state, will perforce have to be attentive to the demands made by the states. These include a more equitable transfer of resources, measures like tax rebates, grants of subsidised loans, loan waivers, grant of special status etc.
New Centre-state coordination mechanisms would also need to be put in place to counter terrorism, which respects neither the borders of states nor the borders of neighbouring countries and to nip in the bud forces of regional chauvinism that seek to intimidate ‘outsiders’ or forces that resort to violence in the name of religion. Efforts would have to be made to ensure that regional parties do not interfere in the conduct of foreign policy vis-a-vis the neighbours or vis-a-vis countries with substantial populations of Indian origin.
Back story Indira Gandhi was decisive, even peremptory. (Photograph by Magnum, From Outlook 28 April 2014)
Overall, therefore, a push for greater federalism is on the cards. However, this trend has a flip side to it: most regional parties are family fiefdoms or under the sway of a single individual. There is as yet no sign that they are prepared to let go of their stranglehold. But all are agreed that things won’t fall apart and that the Centre will continue to hold only if it pays more heed to the interests of the states.
The second shift is from the state to the market. For more than 30 years after independence statist intervention in the economy was the order of the day. It was the motor of development. The goal was self-sufficiency. The private sector had its place in this licence-permit raj—but a decidedly secondary one. It was the public sector that was allowed to flourish. The picture began to change after Indira Gandhi’s return to power in 1980. The steps she took to liberalise the economy were tiny and hesitant. They picked up pace during the Rajiv Gandhi era. But the paradigm shift happened under P.V. Narasimha Rao’s watch in 1991. A World Bank expert hailed it as the most significant event after the implosion of the Soviet empire and China’s embrace of the market economy. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh hastened the process.
Global integration and domestic deregulation accounted for the economy’s spectacular growth. (It did slow down in the UPA’s second term in power.) But the reforms had their share of critics who railed against India’s ‘meek submission’ to international financial institutions and multinational corporations. The reforms, they further charged, had widened social and regional disparities, encouraged the growth of crony capitalism, generated scams and devastated the environment. Reforms didn’t create jobs in adequate numbers or contain inflation either.
Partly to address such criticism and partly to improve their electoral prospects, the UPA initiated a slew of social welfare measures targeting the poor and marginal sections of society. These have also been criticised on the grounds of faulty implementation and the intolerable pressures they bring to bear on the public exchequer. However, governments in future won’t dispense with these measures altogether. Nor will critics be able to stem the tide of reforms. The state’s control of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy is bound to loosen further to the advantage of corporate India—not least because aspirational Indians, even from the SCs, STs and obcs, repose much greater trust in jobs than in freebies and entitlements.
The enthusiasm initially generated by the Anna Hazare movement and by the early success of the fledgling Aam Aadmi Party indeed testifies to a new phenomenon in public life. Protests are no longer confined to seeking quotas and entitlements. They are for better civic services, safeguarding the security of women and, above all, for effective, transparent and accountable governance.
However, the swift disenchantment with the phenomenon also calls for introspection. One reason for it surely is the propensity of the protest movements to reduce complex issues to a single point—corruption. Another is to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations against prominent politicians, business leaders and bureaucrats. Yet another is to rail against all established institutions—from Parliament to courts and several government-appointed bodies.
All of this came to be seen as the misuse of an otherwise powerful weapon that citizens are entitled to wield: the Right to Information Act. But that can in no way detract from the fact that civil society now has the wherewithal to muster public opinion against or in favour of a particular cause of concern or interest to it. Such pressure from ‘below’ for transparent and accountable governance has added a vibrant dimension to Indian democracy. It will continue to keep the nation’s movers and shakers on tenterhooks.
First push JP galvanised political change in the 1970s. (Photograph by HT)
The fourth shift is from an upper-caste-dominated political and economic system to one where those on the lower rungs of the social ladder play a more and more prominent role. The process began barely two decades after Independence, in southern and western India, where the struggle for social equality has a long history. It gained salience in the rest of the country during the Jayaprakash Narayan-led movement against Indira Gandhi’s regime. And it gathered steam with the implementation of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission report.
Along the way, the so-called intermediate castes, who gained the most from land reforms, swiftly managed to acquire political power and, by and by, to control the bureaucracy and the police. They then began to accumulate economic clout as well. Marathas in Maharashtra, Jats in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, Lodhs in Madhya Pradesh, Reddys and Kammas in Andhra Pradesh, Vokkaligas in Karnataka, Vellalas in Tamil Nadu and Yadavs in the three populous states of the North. But they have had to give way to those just below them.
The trajectory of the initial beneficiaries of the system of reservations—SCs and STs—has been along the same lines though the pace of their progression has been distinctly slower. Overall, however, India’s age-old caste system has undergone a thorough overhaul. The more egalitarian caste composition of elected bodies reflects the change of this peaceful social revolution. So does, increasingly, the presence of the lower castes in other fields of public endeavour such as business and the professions.
The fifth shift is from a geriatric India to one where an overwhelming proportion of the population is below the age of 35. It is most evident in the corporate world and in politics, though the young are making their presence felt in just about every other domain of activity. None can afford to ignore them. That should be obvious from parties’ manifestos for the 2014 elections.
However, given the numbers of young people, the system is faced with a humongous challenge. It needs to provide them with quality education and vocational skills. And it needs to ensure that they get the security of gainful employment. Unless this challenge is confronted in right earnest, the demographic dividend could swiftly lead to a demographic liability. That could destabilise society and the democratic order in ways best not imagined. Either way the young will continue to change India as never before for at least another three decades.
Less obvious, but by no means less significant, is the sixth shift—from a male-centric India to one that is more gender-balanced. Even as atrocities against women continue to grow, there is a greater awareness today than at any time in the nation’s history of their rights to security, education, health and jobs. And while no end is yet in sight to the ‘moral policing’ or to the variations of ‘khap justice’, there is no gainsaying the fact that women are increasingly breaking the glass ceilings that have kept them confined to the kitchen and the marital bed. And this even without the much-promised reservations in Parliament and legislatures.
Their involvement at every echelon of the political, economic, social and cultural power structures is ushering in another quiet revolution. It threatens the culturally-shaped privileges and prerogatives of the Indian male as never before. And that is all to the good. Despite setbacks, the quest for gender parity is all set to accelerate.
New movement Crowds heading for Anna Hazare’s famous protest at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi. (Photograph by PTI)
Two other shifts merit attention. They relate to mindsets and attitudes. The first one (highlighted time and again by the distinguished scientist R.A. Mashelkar) is a move away from ‘techno-nationalism’—which was inevitable during the long period when India was denied access to critical technologies—to ‘techno-globalism’. It is driven by robust global knowledge and innovation hubs that are intrinsically linked to the globalisation of the economy. Transnational companies turn to them to create goods and provide services across several geographies.
But ‘techno-globalism’ also addresses challenges ranging from climate change to the water crisis. Indian engineers, scientists and managers are at the forefront of this trend though the country has a long way to go before it emerges as a global innovation hub. Budgetary allocations for research and development are niggardly. Political interference and bureaucratic wrangling stymie innovation. But given the burgeoning national mood in favour of a rapidly growing and competitive economy, ‘techno-globalism’ is poised to take a great leap forward.
The other shift, a corollary of the one mentioned above, is from an inward-looking India to one that is more and more outward-looking, thanks to satellite television, the internet and travel and/or stay abroad for education, jobs or tourism. The exposure to the outside world has had considerable impact on lifestyles but also made Indians more aware of the elements that should constitute their cultural and national identities.
What these trends and processes suggest is that the binary of ‘India Shining-India Whining’ that has shaped public discourse for the past decade limits one’s understanding of the profound transformations in the country since its independence. They could perhaps even herald the advent of another republic in all but name, a republic that would be different in spirit and temper from the one that the people of India gave themselves on January 26, 1950.
The preamble of the Constitution mentions ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ as the republic’s distinguishing features. The first has been reduced to a simulacrum. The second has received a battering under all governments. But be grateful for small mercies. Our republic is also democratic. That alone will allow us to make a bonfire of the hubris, conceits and vanities of the nation’s lords and masters.
The writer is a consulting editor with the Times of India and a member of the editorial board of The World Post
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Have often wondered how different the arc and trajectory of the Republic, its economy most certainly and the general welfare of its people, but also its place in the neighbourhood, region and the wider world would have been if socialism had not been the guiding principle around which its economic orthodoxy had been constructed. 23 years after 1991, many of those cobwebs are still as strong as steel cables.
The Biggest Paradigm shift in 2014 elections (as opposed to all previous elections) is that the Social Media/Internet/Smart Phone/Mobile Internet has come of age to an extent that News content is now generated by people and transmitted by citizens completely by passing the vested interests and elite..
Thus till late 1980s, the CON party controlled National media (AIR and DD) regulated what the citizens could know about the state of affairs and through 1990s and 2000s, the private media which again is owned by a select elite close to ruling power centers decided what the news we would hear..
It is now post 2010 , the rise of smart phone and social media which has changed all this and enabled citizens to analyse the news sources the way they want and not the way it is presented by power elite..
Which is why the Media - despite demonizing Modi 24 by 7 seince 2002 non stop failed to stop the rise of Modi.. which is always why despite all the hype and support given by Media to promote AAP to checkmate Modi (since Dec 2013) has failed .
2014 will be the watershed year when the elite media failed to decide what citizens of India vote..
Good analysis and largely accurate.
Mr Padgaonkar says - "Article 356 of the Constitution—that allows the Centre to dismiss a state government—can no longer be used summarily" . Agreed but he failed mention the unbriddled power of the CBI. The CBI is now extensively used by the central govt to reign in the state governments using frivolous charges.
He also says "... shift—from a male-centric India to one that is more gender-balanced ". A welcome shift towards gender balance but what about the caste balance? The upper castes continue to have complete dominance in the main stream media.
Following outright partition “journalists” (or whatever) should read this and learn what a good journalism is all about!
and others ...
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT