Media (Television / Print / Social) is replete with discussions on post lockdown reboot of economy. The moot question - Should such reboot be predicated on the same principles (either capitalist or communist) as was before this pandemic stuck us? These principles have been the fulcrum of all public policy initiatives in many countries for more than a century. Bharat has experimented with quasi communist model for about 4 decades and then “socialist capitalism” for atleast 3 decades. The results of these initiatives are found to be divergent from those expected by public at large (in Bharat and Globally). It would be worthwhile to examine the “Bharatiya Integrated Humanism” principles as a new fulcrum driving public policy for reboot of Bharat. Pandit Deendayal upadhyaya proposed this principles in his book – “Integral Humanism[1]”. These thoughts were further expanded or shared in detail by Shri Dattopant Thengadi[2] and recently by Shri Subramanian Swamy[3].
We could draw inspiration that these principles were espoused extensively in “Arthashastra” by Chanakya. Mauryan (320 BCE to 185 BCE) and Gupta (320 CE to 414 CE) and society under these principles were progressive. Both these periods are described as golden age for Bharat in most development parameters of modern age.
This paper is an attempt to capture the difference in principles of economic policy currently being pursued. Attempt is also made to contrast between these contemporary principles and those enunciated in Arthashastra. The paper also captures few broad actionable policy points blending contemporary approach with the administration wisdom as espoused by learned philosophers of medieval Bharat. Detailing of the actionable points are proposed to be articulated in a series of papers by the author.
Principles conundrum for Bharat:
“Public policy is the process by which governments translate their political vision into programs and actions to deliver ‘outcomes — desired changes in the real world”[4]. We are increasingly observing that use of rational choice / evidence based theory (EBT) as basis for policy formulation is being favored. History and Culture are largely ignored or used as a secondary lens to substantiate / further the argument arrived basis evidence based theory. The conundrum for Bharat lies here.
[1] Integral humanism – by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay – Jagriti Prakashan – fifth edition 1992 [2] Foreword in the book “India’s planned poverty” – Foreword by Shri D B Thengadi. Published by Bharatiya Kisan Sangh 1989 [3] Reset – Regaining India’s economic legacy – published by Rupa publications 2019 [4] Definition in wikipedia We have observed through various instances of lockdown infarctions that the “real Bharat” continues to respect culture and community practices (all religious and demographic denominations have demonstrated this tendencies). Evidence based theory might suggest certain public policy. However if such policy doesn’t take culture and practice into account then it could lead to failure. Covid Lockdown is an extreme example where exceptional enforcement by state could stand judicial scrutiny. However, in the general scheme of things any policy (however effective it might prove through EBT) would be resisted / ineffective if it is against the grain of accepted cultural / customary norms. Bharat is targeting to promote Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as enunciated in the preamble to its Constitution. Adoption of Principles of Capitalism results in a society wherein survival of the fittest, consumerism and unrestricted exploitation of resources are prevalent. Public policy in capitalist society would be seen as: a. favoring the Rich (suit boot ki sarkar) - Vitiating equality of opportunity & status; b. promoting unsustainable exploitation of resource (including human resource) resulting into environmental degradation – vitiating dignity of individuals; and c. resulting into rising wealth inequity – over a reasonable period of time economic resources start getting concentrated with a few. The price for input resources (labour) is based on consumerism and not utility. Consumerism further gnaws away disposable income from average household converting it from savers to net borrowers. This increases their dependency on social infrastructure and their personal wealth is not sufficient. This undermines social justice and liberty. Adoption of principles of communism results in a society wherein totalitarianism, political repression, restrictions of human rights, poor economic performance and cultural and artistic censorship could be widely prevalent. Public policy in communist society would be seen as: a. promoting abuse of power: the system allows for select few to have substantial say over all important aspects of individual rights (eg. ownership / progeny). Such select few could potentially perpetuate their personal agenda through such vested powers for a long period of time; b. Economically inefficient and does not reward individual / group efficiencies: policies generally favor large industrial / commercial set up due to its centralized command structure. Economic resources are thus diverted away from large scale distributive activities to single location large scale aggregative activities. Thus there is a large bias towards inefficiency and inflexibility. Principles of “Integrated Humanism” in deeply rooted in the Bharatiya philosophy of collective consciousness. Capitalism (Individual is supreme), Communism (Individual is only a resource) and its various variations termed as Socialism have explored humans primarily from only economic context. The spirit of human existence has many dimensions has been ignored. Existence of these multiple dimensions can be proven by observing responses of an individual on an economic matter in isolation and group setting. This phenomenon has been given prominence through Union of India economic survey for last two years – nomenclature as Behavorial economics. Integrated Humanism in operation - Principle of Bharat Integrated Humanism recognizes that society has its independent existence on account of cultural norms and practices that survive through generations of individuals. Thus economic policy have to be articulated to factor this dualism. While individual liberties are to be upheld it would have to exist within the paradigm of Dharma in society. In this setting I would like to propose the following changes to the way Bharat formulates its own economic policy: 1. Develop Social indicators to track economic progress - Achieving USD 5 trillion GDP but with high level of wealth / income / social inequity is of limited consequence. Strife is bound to increase in such a society. Unsustainable Consumption would be the key phenomenon in such economies. Chanakya in this matter states - “Arthashastra is the science which is the means of the acquisition and protection of earth”[1]. Chanakya further articulates that public policy should be directed towards acquisition, preservation, augmentation and bestowal (to worthy recipients) of things by the State[2]. GDP should be hence dropped as the primary factor basis which economic policy is tracked or rated. Index based on availability of basic social amenities at every administrative unit level – Zilla Parishad / Panchayat samiti should be constructed. Movement in this index should be used to track development of the country. Such social amenities could include – Healthcare, Education, Power, Sanitation, Water and Low Crime rates. Detailed examination of Arthashastra would indicate that there is a lot of emphasis on Janapada (countryside residents) and their well being[3] over that of Durg (forts or protected cities). 2. Focus on de-urbanization - Public Investments should be largely channelized into such projects rather than urban infrastructure. De-urbanization is the need of the hour to ensure that social strife gets limited. Arthashastra lays ample emphasis on the physical organization of the Villages / Cities / Protected enclaves. Ideal size of a village (inhabitants and acreage) is prescribed from point of view of administration and sustainability. Such villages are then aggregated in various tiers called Samgrahana, Karvatika, Dronamukha and Sthaniya[4]. Such organization promotes new settlements and helps decongest existing centres of residence. The natural resources and social infrastructure requirement are not thus overloaded or allowed to idle leading to development of sustainable society. 3. Recalibrating Cost of any urban project – the current model of “Urban Development” is essentially a misnomer. All such development projects are using migrant labor. Thus for developing one pocket of urban space, there are atleast couple of slums being created. The density of population in such “developed urban centres” increases further compounding the urban development problem. It would be critical to compute cost of urban project after factoring cost of making basic amenities to labor in and around the project site. This would obviously increase the cost of the urban project (which is actually a better indicator of social impact assessment). Such recalibration would tilt public investment decisions towards decentralized and distributed development. This would in turn result into de-urbanization. 4. Empowering ground level administrative units – the diversity of Bharat in terms of demography, culture and ecology is well documented fact. Such diversity would entail different policy approach to ensure progress in social indicators. Public finance policy should be reoriented towards allocation of resources in the following order: a. towards national priorities – defence / space / communication / foreign affairs / banking. b. towards Zilla Parishad (ZP) / Panchayati Raj (PR) projects – ensuring basic infrastructure is made available. Further strengthening of local economic infrastructure to ensure that livelihoods are created in immediate vicinity rather than through urban migration. Such economic infrastructure should be identified by local authorities based on local realities. This model is antipodal to the central command structure adopted during most of 20th century. A note of caution here that I am not denigrating or undermining the policies of 20th century. I am only recommending changes as technology has enabled new methods and approaches to be examined gainfully. c. towards harmonizing regional development plans – many infrastructure projects would be beneficial to a group of ZP / PR. Based on consensus of these groups, such projects should be taken up for implementation by the state / regional level administration. Funding allocations could be through aggregation of ZP / PR contribution thus ensuring cost benefit connections and commitment of the local populace to the project. Conclusion Adoption of different contemporary economic policy approaches over 7 decades in Bharat has its own share of success and gaps. The gaps seem to become more accentuated as observed in inequities of development, wealth distribution, income levels and last but not the least access to basic amenities. The contemporary approaches might have been the ideal to adopt in earlier times given limitation around resources, administrative capacity, physical accessibility and timely information. With huge leaps in transportation and information technology fields, many of these limitations no longer can constrain any policy implementation initiative. It would serve well to challenge certain status quo approaches to developing economic policy which are received eurocentric wisdom. Bharat has successful examples of economic policy using distinctive principles developed by our philosophers based on Bharatiya culture and realities. Its time to give these wisdom a chance to play out and unleash true potential of Bharatiya Janapada. Reference: 1. Integral humanism – by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay – Jagriti Prakashan – fifth edition 1992 2. Foreword in the book “India’s planned poverty” – Foreword by Shri D B Thengadi. Published by Bharatiya Kisan Sangh 1989 3. Reset – Regaining India’s economic legacy – by Shri Subramanian Swami. Published by Rupa publications 2019 4. The Kautilya Arthashastra - by Shri R. P. Kangle. Published by Motilal banarasidass publishers. [1][1] Arthashastra by Chanakya. 15.1.1 - 2 [2] Arthashastra by Chanakya. 1.4.3 [3] Arthashastra by Chanakya. 8.1.32 & 13.4.5 [4] Arthashastra by Chanakya. 2.1.1 – 2.1.4
Comments