Perversion of the State

India is a nation born out of high ideals. It is the first, and possibly, the last country in the world to get freedom through a non-violent movement (helped by the pressure on Britain post 2^nd world war). The group which led the movement had hoped for a country which would serve as a beacon of hope. Nehru said on August 14, 1947: “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny….That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.”

This was the aspirations on the basis on which our country was found. This honesty of purpose and idealism guided the first generations of politicians. But idealism is not and cannot be the basis of a nation’s action (non-alignment, non-violence). The outcome may be based idealism that but action may not be - Lincoln abolished slavery and united the US but the actions to secure this were driven by cold statecraft. The first priority of the leaders of any nation is to secure the national borders. Weakness in action enabled the loss of territory to both Pakistan and China. This continued even as geostrategic reality in on Indian borders underwent the change (i.e. Tibet, Burma, China and Nepal). This weakness in national posture has continued till date and even the high point of 1971 war resulted in restoring the status quo on the western border.

The fatal failure of Nehru to institutionalize and democratize of the Congress Party has ensured perpetuation of nepotism of the worst order. We are currently being ruled by the 4^th generation of the family trying to pass the baton to the 5^th generation. This is the lead that all major political parties have followed. Tyranny (absolute power) is the farthest remove of all the perversions from true constitution… (Aristotle).

The divisiveness of religion perpetuated in self-interest by our politicians has divided and sub-divided the Indian populace in a manner that would be a marketer’s delight. Ambedkar had warned, “The sovereignty of scriptures of all religions must come to an end if we want to have a united integrated modern India.”

The left leaning politics of our founders founded in the political fear of America who they saw as the inheritor of the British global leadership saw the emergence of planned economy aligned to the Soviet Union, which then moved to nationalism and then to economics of special treatment and special interests. The hope for salvation on this path crashed with the collapse of the Soviet Union but in this process 4 decades were wasted before a limited free enterprise was unleashed and large parts of the economy were occupied by then by special interests. Ambedkar said, “History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.”

In effect the 4 key tenets of the state – security, governance, economics and unity - have been undermined, corrupting the functioning of the state. The tryst of the Indian state with its destiny continues to yearn for fulfillment…even in 2010 the World Bank reported that 32.7% of the total Indian people fall below the international poverty line of US$1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$2 per day.

An Indian Politician's 'Moral' Dilemma

Have politicians miscued massively? My sense is they have. As they gave financial liberties to people post the 1990s, the Indian economy did much better than the previous decades since independence. While the asset created by the political class till then and sometime after benefited hugely driven by access to international capital but with the change in the economic model and people's incomes came a few things:

• New regulatory authorities to manage a far more complex economy which encroached upon the power's of the executive (recall CAG on 2G, Election commission);
• Higher income levels made the middle class demand better governance (Anna movement or the Delhi rape outburst), social media accentuated these trends;
• The urban centers gained initially and in response to this can the various wealth transfer schemes (MNAREGA etc). This wealth transfer incrementally pushed the rural areas on the fringes towards greater urbanization. Now 1/3rd of India lives in urban centers demanding improved living standards. 

The political class and the bureaucracy which in the gravy of power had ossified and believed that 'politics has no relation to morals' (Machiavelli). It has been shaken hard by the changes, a change from the era of no answer-ability to permanent scrutiny. Politics is always fluid but in balance. Imbalance in the executive has been filled by the judiciary and other wings but this is not the state of equilibrium. 

The citizen's are demanding better services (infrastructure, policing etc) and higher accountability of the elected officials / bureaucracy. This can be only met by more decentralized but accountable system otherwise the edges will fray. Let's take the example of a small company run by an entrepreneur can do without IT systems, organizations, proper accounting etc. But as the company grows larger they need to address these basics otherwise it will fail. This is not to say significant errors do not arise in large companies but probability is far lower. Like here, the political executive is fraying as they do not want to evolve fast enough. The glue (corruption and self-preservation) that holds them will be re-wired and corruption proceeds will decline and sacrificial lambs will be demanded at least in the short run until the re-wiring is done. The political class may not achieve the Aristotle dream of giving people what they deserve, helping them achieve their highest nature and living a good life, but there is much between the two realms to aspire for.

Could they have avoided this outcome? Unfortunately, no. That would have required one leader or party with a long range plan for evolution. Democracies do not allow for it. But this schism has left serious gaps in governance creating both external and internal issues. The nation needs a leader of a different caliber to bridge the chasm. As they say, when law become despotic, morals are relaxed. We need a change in course...the nation needs to feel good.