Wealth of nature and unintended impact

Ancient civilizations were a agricultural based society. It was the wealth of the land which translated to well-being of a society. The table below shows the top 4 nations and the comparative land mass and the ratio of cultivated and arable land. It is clear that India was an extremely well-endowed country.

Rank	Country	Cultivated land (km2)	Cultivated land (%)	Arable land (km2)	Arable land (%)	Total land area (km2)
—	World	17,298,900	11.61	15,749,300	10.57	149,000,000
1	United States	1,669,302	18.22	1,650,062	18.01	9,826,675
2	India	1,535,063	51.63	1,451,810	48.83	3,287,240
3	China	1,504,350	16.13	1,385,905	14.86	9,640,821
4	Russia	1,192,300	7.28	1,174,284	7.17	17,075,400

This bounty of nature allowed India in early ages to develop and excel in science, culture, art, development of religions (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism) in the same manner that propelled the Europeans at the time of the industrial revolution. However, India never participated in the industrial revolution that took place in the west in the 18th and 19th century nor did it develop the industrial architecture post independence. We moved seamlessly to the services age from an agrarian economy in the late 20th century, skipping industrialization. The Europeans during the industrial age did not only massively develop their infrastructure to the support this change, mass production also pushed them for resources and markets outside their immediate neighborhood. India had no such compulsion, it continued to live in a self-contained world. Further, nature (harsh winters) enforced no compulsions to develop better infrastructure whether for transport or food.

A L Basham, Professor of Asian Civilization in the Australian National University, Canberra in his book The Wonder that was India published first in 1954 makes some interesting commentary in this regard, "It has often been said that the scale of natural phenomena in India, and her total dependence on the monsoon, have helped to form the character of her peoples. Even today major disasters, such as flood, famine and plague, are hard to check, and in older times their control was almost impossible. Many other ancient civilizations, such as those of the Greeks, Romans and Chinese, had to contend with hard winters, which encouraged sturdiness and resource. India, on the other hand, was bless by bounteous Nature, who demanded little of man in return for sustenance, but in her terrible anger could not be appeased by human effort. Hence, it has been suggested, the Indian character has tended to fatalism and quietism, accepting fortune and misfortune alike without complaint."

The incestuous nature of development where one segment allows the other segment to in turn develop has in the 'fatalism and quietism' completely escaped the India policy makers. Our anciently most evolved sector (agriculture) today suffers due to lack of industrial development - lack of irrigation and mechanization, new seed development, transportation infrastructure among other things. The growth in GDP which has been driven by services over the last few decades have been propelled significantly by technological changes globally (IT outsourcing and communication technology) and adopted in India which in turn has driven domestic demand in areas of local trade, real estate, financial inter-mediation.

Niall Ferguson talks about 6 killer apps of development (and my thoughts on where India is on each of them):

1. Competition - We have seen this only in the last 2 decades since the opening up of the Indian economy consequently a very limited period.
2. Scientific Revolution - India is not there in the list of 'patents in force' of top 20 countries 
3. Property rights - At best we have partial rights and extremely difficult enforce-ability
4. Modern medicine - We have seen significant leap in provider infrastructure but India is nowhere at the cutting edge of equipment, pharmaceuticals or education of medicine.
5. Consumer society - Our GDP has had a healthy mix of consumption. Availability of finance and choices in the last decade have further helped this.
6. Work ethic - This I will let the reader decide for himself..Indian labor is 10% of US GDP per person employed as of 2012 

The reason for historical success has constrained development in the more recent past. We became complacent. We had begun to make significant strides post-1991 but again our instincts failed us in the last decade - we cannot blame the bounty of the gods nor continue to live in the halo of our forefathers.

Failure of Strategic Thinking

When the Americans attacked Afghanistan, it was to send a message 'don't mess with us'. This was the first time after Pearl Harbor that American mainland was attacked, the response had to disproportionate. But post the collapse of the Soviet Union, the sole super-power also suffered from the belief in 'infinite ability' and, the consequence followed in Iraq attack. The two key strategic fronts of Russia and China weakened, allowing Russians to recover and Chinese used this time to gain in their near neighbor-hood and develop their area denial, space and cyber capabilities undeterred. The American actions significantly deteriorated the balance of power in the Middle-East, Syria is a consequence. Inability to punish Syria for crossing the line, is betrayal of this weakness. Americans are now trying to re-establish the balance of power structure they tore apart, re-balancing forces in the Pacific (to contain China) and play the fine balance in Syria for the fear of a further breakdown.

Here the chess player who played from a position of 'infinite' strength forgot that strategic moves are always limited, never infinite. Machiavelli writes in the Prince - "A Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." The Americans forgot the art of war and managing the politics (unilateralism) in this period post the Soviet collapse. It displayed a clear lack of strategic thinking.

I write the above to make a case on how a nation meandered, de-focused from its goals a little bit in the context of its history and its consequences. 

In the context of this minor deviation and its consequence, let's evaluate India's overall strategic imperatives and have we kept sight of them since independence:

• Control the Indo-gangetic plain - The Indo-gangetic plain is the core of India encompassing one of the most fertile lands in the world. The ruler of this patch has always been the most powerful force in the sub-continent and its center of gravity. Even today UP demonstrates its strength in the Indian parliament and setting the national agenda. 

• Protection of the the north western border - This has been the key access point for most attacks on India's except when the Europeans came by sea. The border continues to push with multiple wars being fought with Pakistan. The Chinese surely understand the geopolitics of the region and will continue to maintain a strong relationship with Pakistan. It is incumbent on India to break the mold, something it has not done for almost 2,000 years. 

• Ensure that the Center holds - The vast divisions in India driven by regionalism, myriad castes, cultures, languages etc have always driven localized systems that have not allowed themselves to be governed by a strong Center. The regions have had changing political systems which have partnered with others to ensure their relative independence. Recall the various Indian princes during the Mughal and British era which were happy to collaborate as long as their interests were served. Look now how the regional political parties work to ensure their interests are maintained while the Center does not gain adequate strength to subdue regionalism. We have had only four periods in Indian history when the Center was strong - Mauryan, Mughal (post Akbar), British, 40 years post independence and to some extent the Gupta period. The rest have seen mean reversion to age old 'regionalism'.

• Once the above key pieces were in place build a strategic vision for South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Curzon wrote - "The central position of India, its magnificent resources, its teeming multitude of men, its great trading harbors,... all these assets are of precious value. On the West, India must exert a dominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan; on the north it can veto any rival in Tibet; on the north-east it can exert pressure on China, and it is the guardians of the autonomous existence of Siam (Thailand)." To this extent, maintain peace in South Asia through opening its markets to ensure strong interests of its neighbors and build a strong navy to project power in the Indian Ocean.

India caught in its regionalism and balancing the needs of its large population has continued to struggle in achieving these over-arching national strategic goals. Our politicians have deeply lacked vision. The Americans will likely come back and play the game to their strategy, the 'real' game of chess never started for the Indian elite, they are still figuring out who to play with...