• Home
  • About
  • Reading Lists
    • Egypt
    • Great Books
    • Iran
    • Islam
    • Israel
    • Liberalism
    • Napoleon
    • Nationalism
    • The Nuclear Age
    • Science
    • Russia
    • Turkey
  • Digital Footprint
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Pocket
    • SoundCloud
    • Twitter
    • Tumblr
    • YouTube
  • Contact
    • Email

Chaturanga

~ statecraft, strategy, society, and Σοφíα

Chaturanga

Tag Archives: NDA

100 Days of Narendra Modi

28 Thu Aug 2014

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in India, South Asia

≈ Comments Off on 100 Days of Narendra Modi

Tags

100 Days, ASEAN, Australia, Bangladesh, Bharatiya Janata Party, Bhutan, BJP, BRICS, FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, India, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Lok Sabha, Napoleon, Narendra Modi, National Democratic Alliance, NDA, Nepal, Rajya Sabha, SAARC, Sushma Swaraj, United States, Vietnam

It was US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt who borrowed the term ‘100 Days’ from Napoleonic history to describe the feverish working of the 73rd US Congress which had sat for a 100 days from March 09 to June 17, 1933. The term was first used in a radio address on July 24 of the same year and contrary to popular belief, it does not refer to FDR’s first 100 days in office – he was sworn in five days earlier – but that session of Congress.

Since then, 100 Days has gone on to become a barometer of performance of all US presidents, much to their chagrin, and now an Indian prime minister. Few leaders have enjoyed the sort of control FDR and the Democrats had over the House and Senate in 1933 – a 196-vote margin in the former and a 23-vote margin in the latter. Unfortunately for Modi, he holds a small majority of 64 in the Lok Sabha but is 67 votes short of a majority in the Rajya Sabha.

Beyond numbers, the 100 Days barometer is unsuited to a system of government wherein the Executive is not as powerful as it is in a presidential system. Furthermore, the short time frame is not as fair a judge of a new government as an annual address to the nation, taking stock of the achievements, shortcomings, and ambitions of the next year, would be…the first one after a full year in office. As Sir Humphrey would have reminded his audience, diplomacy is about surviving until the next century whereas politics is about surviving until Friday afternoon.

In the realm of foreign policy, Modi’s 100 days have been been interesting; right off the bat, he invited the leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to his inaugural address and spent time each of them the day after his swearing-in ceremony. It was an interesting choice of guests, shunning all the major powers and even strategic partners like Israel or Japan. However, it appeared to be the first play of the new prime minister’s decision to pivot India towards Asia. During his conversation with Nawaz Sharif, Modi pushed Sharif again on the granting of Most Favoured Nation status by Pakistan to India, which has been pending for almost two decades. This initial optimism towards Pakistan was dampened after India cancelled foreign secretary-level talks after the Pakistani high commissioner to Delhi met with the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leaders.

In line with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s manifesto to reinvigourate SAARC, Modi’s first international visit was to Bhutan, followed by a visit to Nepal; his foreign minister, Sushma Swaraj, also visited Bangladesh. The flurry of foreign visits to the neighbours, has resulted in agreements on Indian aid, the joint development of hydroelectic power, and discussions on any grievances such as the India-Nepal Friendship Treaty of 1950.

Another major foreign policy initiative by Modi Sarkar came during the BRICS summit at Fortaleza right after the World Cup finals. The New Development Bank was established, with India as its first chairman and its headquarters in Shanghai. The bank provides yet another avenue for India to develop its soft power while fostering new markets for its goods and services. Modi had previously met with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi in Delhi regarding Beijing’s investment in Indian manufacturing and special economic zones. China has also accepted India’s full inclusion into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

True to the election manifesto, Modi’s international contacts so far have prioritised economic development. Beyond BRICS and SAARC, India set a delegation to Vietnam, a country that will play a strategic role in any “Look East Policy.” Easier trade with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was also promised. However, his rejection of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement despite pressure from the United States and other Western states has cooled the ardour for Modi’s reforms in the West. It indicates, however, a clear awareness India’s problems and the solutions it would need to develop. In fact, Modi’s medium-paced economic reforms show far more wisdom and maturity than many of his followers’ urgent appeals do.

The new government has also played host to several international leaders. Swaraj met with her Omani counterpart and Russian counterparts in her first month in office, as well as French (Laurent Fabius), German, British (William Hague, George Osborne), and American (John McCain, William Burns, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel) leaders. The international community’s eagerness to do business with India is a heartening sign that the acerbic rhetoric before the elections has given way to pragmatism in foreign capitals and boardrooms.

Two international crises intruded on Modi’s 100 Days – the kidnapping of Indians by ISIS in Iraq and Israeli action against Hamas in Gaza. Delhi’s response was deemed slow but there were hardly any options either. Thankfully, the crisis was resolved with many of the Indians returning home. On Gaza, the government initially refused to even hold a parliamentary discussion but in a very unpopular move with BJP supporters, eventually voted against Israel at a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

India has also sealed a nuclear deal with Australia which is to be signed in September. Also on the books for the month just beyond his 100 Days is a visit to Washington DC and one to Tokyo, where the Indian delegation has already signed a historic defence agreement with Japan and has agreed to institute a 2+2 dialogue (foreign and defence minister) between them; Japan has such dialogues only with the United States, France, Australia, and Russia.

Modi has earned a reputation for being a meticulous planner and it shows; India’s initiatives with its neighbours and other partners have proceeded according to a plan and gone well. However, Delhi’s slow and muddled response to sudden crises reveals a weakness in the Ministry of External Affairs, one that has been known for decades. If Modi is to rely on his MEA over the next five years, some attention should be paid to acquring area studies, language, and cultural experts on regions of interest to India.

In the realm of security, Modi Sarkar has sped up clearance for critical border roads along the frontier with China and moved to strengthen troop deployment as well as civilian settlements in the region. Over ₹30,000 crores of procurement proposals have been cleared and 100% FDI in the defence sector has been allowed. Given the long gestation period of defence development, these initial steps indicate that the government is headed in the right direction – a little long-term reform without ignoring the pressing needs of the day.

On the whole, it has been a decent 100 Days. Compared to the lethargy of the previous administration, Modi Sarkar has indeed set a refreshing pace. While the list of concrete achievements may be small, Modi’s period in office has been equally small. By reaching out to SAARC and BRICS first, Modi did exactly what he had said he would during his campaign. The slight surprise was, however, his warm response to US overtures of friendship; many analysts had predicted a sour relationship between the two democracies given the visa imbroglio. Modi has proven to be a far more pragmatic leader than his critics or even his supporters had thought.

The most important task for Modi in his first 100 days in office was to maintain the enthusiasm about India, both within and without – India was the land of opportunity, the next growth miracle. The prime minister had to make people believe that the country is headed in the right direction; in that, he has succeeded. The barometer is inadequate for anything more substantial. As they say, Rome was not built in a day.


This post appeared on Daily News & Analysis on September 01, 2014.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Indian Condition

02 Fri Nov 2012

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in Theory & Philosophy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

crony capitalism, feudalism, India, Indian National Congress, Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, mai-baap, NDA, socialism, statism, Third Front, UPA

It is remarkable how entrenched statism – and to a slightly lesser extent, socialism – are in the Indian psyche. In any discussion of the country’s shortcomings, the common refrain one hears among Indians is that the government does not do anything. In a country whose parliament is essentially filled by the socialist Left and the religious Left, this is no loss to the political masters. But how much does it help citizens? Or is it still subjects?

It is not fair entirely fair to blame the people for this, though they must bear some responsibility. The pervasive resignation to mai-baapism takes more than a few people in a few years. This feudal mindset takes generations to develop, and it takes generations to escape. In Europe, it took revolutions and liberal governance to create an as yet imperfect balance of rights between the state and individuals. For better or for worse, there is no sign of either in India.

Call it fate, or blame the vagaries of history, but around the time of the Enlightenment and the subsequent Industrious and Industrial revolutions, India underwent significant de-industrialisation and was ultimately colonised. Three factors for India’s economic decline are thought to be, 1. cheaper machine manufactured goods in Europe, 2. a Mughal economic policy ravaged by war and worsened by the dissolution of their empire, and 3. a gradual shift to commodity exports from manufactured goods due to relative trade advantage of the former over the latter. For whatever reason, these factors indicate an intellectual decline, or a failure to convert science to technology, thereby ceding the edge to the West.

There is some debate on the nature of Mughal rule and its impact on India, and I am no expert in this area. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the arguments that claim a decentralised, liberal Mughal rule that allowed small entrepreneurs and ideas to flourish is flawed on one basic count – if such were the case, why did they succumb to a vastly smaller military force? The need for military technology was as prevalent in India as it was in Europe – the subcontinent was hardly a peaceful and idyllic place! Furthermore, why were the most prized items of trade Western weaponry in exchange for spices, tea, and other products from the subcontinent? The valiant defence of the Mughals reminds me of Diogenes – when confounded by Xeno’s airtight argument on the impossibility of motion, just stood up and walked around. If the Mughals were indeed so liberal and not in decline, why did they fail totally against not even a European state army but a corporation’s militia?

The impact of the Raj went beyond merely restraining material prosperity; rapacious imperial policies reduced the overwhelming majority of India (or at least kept them there) to thinking about the next meal than about a better steam engine or water pump; literacy was not encouraged either. Technology in India had few achievements to boast of in the two centuries before Company rule, and slow dissemination of Western machines such as the printing press, the telegraph, railways, did not create a vibrant public sphere. Power – political, economic, and military – remained vested in the government and embrace a new class of entrepreneurs.

The real betrayal came after independence. Indians, despite a nascent outward habitus of voting, remained largely in the feudal mindset of state patronage. Unlike the American revolutionaries, the leaders of the Indian independence struggle used the rhetoric of nation rather than individual liberty to drive out the British (quite understandable, given the differences). Jawaharlal Nehru, a committed Fabian socialist, used his popular appeal to showcase socialism as the only face of modernity. Opposition to Nehru’s ideas made for good reading in the Lok Sabha records but carried little weight among the masses. Used to seeing the state as a patron, first from kings and then from the colonial masters, socialism fit right in with their worldview – if they had one. Nehru’s education policy focused on grand projects such as the Indian Institutes of Technology but paid much less attention to primary and secondary education. Nehru promoted heavy industry and neglected cottage industry and the private sector, keeping the economy largely in the hands of the state. The rise of the bureaucratic class to build, maintain, and lackadaisically run the state machinery, from banks and media to nuclear power and communications, ensured that the state remained the godfather of most educational and economic opportunity; control of the media ensured that this narrative was not challenged by greedy private or “subversive” foreign elements.

Power flowed fairly easily from father to daughter, and the reign of Indira Gandhi spelled a new Dark Age for India. Perhaps Durga for Pakistan in 1971, Indira Gandhi was a Lamashtu for Indians. The disasters of the IG years are beyond the scope of this post, but the state grew in power during her tenure, personality cults were encouraged, and cronyism rewarded. Indira Gandhi, the Gandhi family, the Indian National Congress, and the state it wielded – in that order – became the only source of…everything. News was censored, institutions were bent, banks and airlines were nationalised, and private enterprise was taxed and regulated almost out of existence. The Emergency was yet another demonstration of the power of a rotten state. Throughout her iron fisted rule, the state was advertised as the provider of goods and opportunities, and the license raj which had now grown into astronomical proportions inhibited any private initiative. Indian subjects had yet to be weaned away from statism.

Only the naïve believed that the post-1991 Open Era would spell the end of mai-baapism. It is true that sectors of the economy have opened up, and private media is also tolerated. However, this has only resulted in an unhealthy nexus between big business, the media houses, and the government. Many private media channels are controlled by politicians, and, as the government remains the single largest advertiser, the fourth estate has sold out to the highest bidder. Indeed, with more money in the system, consumerism has risen and has improved the lot of most small business owners. Yet larger businesses still need political godfathers who can extend favours and immunity – for a price – to  them. Despite becoming a more open country, theoretically at least, it is surprising the impunity with which the government still blocks twitter accounts and demands that webpages be removed. Red tape is still a noose around the country’s entrepreneurial instinct. The government’s enlarged budget has been used to extend further subsidies and entitlements to sections of society, further reinforcing dependence on the state. In a way, the Indian government has become society’s peddler!

The cost of missing an intellectual upheaval has been incalculable. All three of India’s political coalitions, the United Progressive Alliance, the National Democratic Alliance, and the Third Front, offer only different flavours of statist solutions. The UPA foists state welfarism on India, the NDA prefers to use the state mechanism to promote religion and will not dismantle the welfare state it inherits, and the Third Front seems set to dissolve the country in parochial state-sponsored minoritarian subsidies and handouts. There is no liberal tradition, based on individualism and liberty, in India. Through historical accident and then by INC misrule, such heretical thoughts were never allowed to flourish.

Some might think it is the aam aadmi‘s fault for his political apathy. Indeed, that may merit a small apportioning of the blame, but the lion’s share must lay with politicians, particularly the INC (they ruled almost ten times longer). For a creature conditioned into muted criticism of the government and dependent on state largesse, the common man finds it easier to manipulate the system and succeed than striking out on his own in a brave new world of individualism, liberty, and capitalism. This is, of course, assuming anyone has time to think after balancing the monthly budget in an era of high food inflation, sluggish economic growth, power shortages, skyrocketing fuel prices, water scarcities, pollution, juggling quotas, poor roads, petty corruption at every step, and public transportation stretched to bursting. A wrung out common man suits the government just fine; after all, as Sir Arnold reminds us in Yes, Prime Minister, no government would reform the system that put it into power in the first place.

In defence of the aam aadmi, it must also be acknowledged that not all people chose mai-baapism – to assume so would be to deny them any agency, which, despite the power differential, they do have. They have proven to be realists, manipulators, and opportunists, using the statist metanarrative to their benefit rather than actually believing in it. In fact, some argue that the whole notion of welfare is too top-down a view and unhelpful; in reality, the lower strata are opportunistic and switch patrons based on who gives the most benefits. Thus, the agency is more with the recipients of patronage than with the politician patrons. Over the years, as welfare structures ossified whether for political reasons or neglect, it has created vested interests in the maintenance of these schemes. This is not necessarily parasitic in nature – many people may have just lost faith that the state could actually deliver better opportunities.

Is the narrative as simple as has been painted above – a statist, top-down approach manipulated by individuals starved of opportunity? Of course not; few things are in India. One factor that complicates the equation is the reach of the state and another is caste. Despite the enormous footprint of the Indian state, the fact is that it doesn’t reach everywhere. Not all regions of India have comparable access to services. Beyond schools and doctors, this goes to bureaucrats and police officials, who could with ease run a minor fiefdom in the backwaters due to lack of oversight. In the case of such state weakness, how can a state descend into a crony system? This question shows a very good perception of the realities of the modern Indian state, and the answer reveals the layers of mai-baapism. In the case of weak state presence, caste plays a large role. Political operators organise along caste faults for maximum demographic advantage to assume power. In power, patronage is extended to the community that raised the leader and oftentimes other castes are excluded from state largesse. The reward for voting “correctly” is state bounty for oneself and one’s kith and kin. Caste becomes a voting criterion. With the right network, one might even be awarded a party ticket for elections (a cross-party analysis of election tickets would yield interesting data). Thus, caste is fused with the welfare state in an odd blend of modernity and feudalism.

There is, of course, the question of the Opposition, specifically the NDA. If the average Indian does not want a massive and interfering state, surely the NDA has overwhelming support to come to power? There are multiple problems with this: 1. the NDA has been in power barely six years of independent India’s sixty-five years, giving them little time to overhaul the state; 2. with the faith in the state so shaken  after decades of INC rule, the entrenched welfarist structures – however suicidal – seem far safer to rely on than yet another government scheme, particularly if it sounds too good to be true; 3. call it political cowardice or electoral suicide, once entitlements have been declared, it becomes a prisoner’s dilemma situation between the voters and the politicians – the former wonder if the government will stay true to their word and implement real change rather than yet another handout, while the latter wonder if the voter will crucify them at the next elections. The institutional breakdown initiated by Indira Gandhi has taken a severe toll on the Indian political landscape.

So what is the solution? I do not have one. It is far easier to jump through the hoops as you are told to and manipulate the system than to challenge it. Besides, who has time for such a project? Not only is it a generational task but also one that requires generous funding, rigorous intellectual effort, and good media relations. Furthermore, no good deed will go unpunished in India. Who will bell the cat? In 1947, after almost three decades of non-violent struggle, India obtained swaraj…swatantrata might be a little more difficult.


I’d like to thank Amar Govindarajan, Harsh Gupta, Manohar Seetharam, Harini Calamur, and Sajid Bhombhal for their comments on an earlier version of this post. I have factored in the criticisms, opinions, and additional data they provided into this version.

A version of this post was published on Niti Central on November 05, 2012.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Chirps

  • Missed you a lot today, @warmatters! You'd have enjoyed Yad LaShiryon... https://t.co/S1Folaj9QW 8 hours ago
  • RT @DanielBShapiro: Never forget the six million Jews — women, men, and children — who were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators i… 3 days ago
  • RT @RachelTortorici: There are 3.4x10 ⁷¹¹¹ possible QR code combinations! https://t.co/HRCo3FDo8k 4 days ago
  • RT @RaoulWootliff: Gideon Sa'ar turned out to be nearly as interesting and relevant as he's always been 6 days ago
  • Japan to help India develop Andaman & Nicobar islands: bit.ly/3rLmsOk | Real tourist potential there - bea… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 6 days ago
Follow @orsoraggiante

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other followers

Follow through RSS

  • RSS - Posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • The Mysterious Case of India’s Jews
  • Polarised Electorates
  • The Election Season
  • Does Narendra Modi Have A Foreign Policy?
  • India and the Bomb
  • Nationalism Restored
  • Jews and Israel, Nation and State
  • The Asian in Europe
  • Modern Political Shibboleths
  • The Death of Civilisation
  • Hope on the Korean Peninsula
  • Diminishing the Heathens
  • The Writing on the Minority Wall
  • Mischief in Gaza
  • Politics of Spite
  • Thoughts on Nationalism
  • Never Again (As Long As It Is Convenient)
  • Earning the Dragon’s Respect
  • Creating an Indian Lake
  • Does India Have An Israel Policy?
  • Reclaiming David’s Kingdom
  • Not a Mahatma, Just Mohandas
  • How To Read
  • India’s Jerusalem Misstep
  • A Rebirth of American Power

Management

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
Considerate la vostra semenza: fatti non foste a viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: