Re: [PEN-L:2380] India, again

["Anthony D'Costa" <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I suppose Doug's note on India is related to the Shiva exchanges.  These
stats from World Bank for sure do reflect the extreme poverty and gross
inequality within India and between India and the First World (sic).
(BTW lowest 20% earn 8.8% of the income in India compared to US' 4.7%). But
what exactly is a progressive government is problematic.  Indian
governments have been progressive if by that you mean concern for the
poor and the oppressed.  Whether they have been effective is a different
matter.  In fact whether progressive governments are enough is
debateable.  What is missing from Doug's posting is an understanding of
Indian institutions and politics.

Technology can help.  But India really does not lack the technology to
solve these kinds of problems.  The Kerala example has been discussed
widely on pen-l sometime ago, a state with very low income and hardly any
natural reosurces.  Yet, its social indicators are by far the best in
India and even exceeds in many cases China's, which is really the comparator
(See Amartya Sen).  So what are the reasons:  three quick one, historical
legacy and progressive ruler of Travancore who promoted education,
literacy for women, and was NOT part of the British empire; matrilineal
society; and receptive and pro-poor Marxist government since the 1950s.


The second point is about "these numbers."  For India, numbers take on a
very different meaning.  What Doug uses are ratios, commonly accepted
indicators.  They erroneously apply the proportion concept universally, as
if there is some linear logic that 10% of an ethnic group ought to have
at least 10% of the jobs.  In India, if 63% of Indian children under 5
are undernourished, what is the absolute number that are not (37%)?  This
is indeed a high figure.  For example, 75% of India's population
has access to safe water.  This is equal to roughly 675 million.  Not a
small figure.  Second, if Doug wants to make the comparison
then compare India of the 1920s and 30s to India of the 60s and 90s.
That ought to show the change.  And if progessive governments are determined
by the results (implied in Doug's posting) then Indian governments have been
progressive.  Not far enough, I agree.  But then it does bring us back to the
issues of institutions and politics.  See Kohli, Bardhan, Brass, Vanaik,
Rudolph & Rudolph, Stern, Frankel, among many others for Indian politics.

Where does this take us to as far as Vandana Shiva is concerned?  Vandana
Shiva is known more in the west than in India.  But that is not a reason
to dismiss what she has to say or what she might represent, in a
paradigmatic sense.  Anti-development sentiments are nothing new (take
the Luddites for example, or the populists elsewhere).  One thing is
certain though, the usual capital accumulation approach based on high
rates of investment and consumption are not bringing in the desired
results.  Global distribution of wealth is ample evidence of that.  Nor
is the approach applicable to all places.  It is once again a question of
institutions, how they change or endure and how they are used for
progressive social change.  Since India (this in many ways is itself
imaginary) has a certain set of nonsecular values that at least from
social governance point of view has been very effective, the deletrious
effects of development are being counterposed by the likes of Shiva in
their rejection of technology/science based solutions to human
emancipation.  In fact a very powerful argument can be made, has been
made, on the superiority of noneconomic basis of exchange, even if that
means forms of inequality which our enlightened "liberal" consciousness
might not permit.  See for example, Stephen Apffel Marglin (in Apffel
Marglin and Apffel Marglin).  It is this strand of Vandana Shiva's posture that
might be useful for talking about alternative forms of development.

On a more personal note:  for India I believe high rates of growth (6-8%)
sustained for the next 20-30 years are likely to alter the some of these
numbers significantly.  But how to engender that is another story of
institutional change and politics.

Anthony D'Costa


On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:

> The more I think about this, the more I wonder. A few stats about India.
> 63% of Indian children under 5 are malnourished. The under-5 mortality rate
> is 122, compared to 8 in the First World; maternal mortality is 420 per
> 100,000. 32% of females in the relevant age group are in secondary school.
> Only one in three women can read. One in four Indians lacks access to clean
> water.
>
> Should a progressive Indian government do something about these numbers?
> And can it do anything without the application of technology - though
> obviously technology of a very different social/political spin from what
> prevails now?
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> Doug Henwood
> Left Business Observer
> 250 W 85 St
> New York NY 10024-3217
> USA
> +1-212-874-4020 voice
> +1-212-874-3137 fax
> email: <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
>
>
>