Governance and Human Security

Ranjit ji,

1. Your comment on the first point provides a partial explanation but leaves room for further enquiry. The disunity that you describe as a fundamental attribute of Hindu society is not peculiar to Hinduism. In fact, you find the same in almost all societies at some point in time. If you take Pakistan today, you find it divided along ethnic, linguistic, sectarian, schools of thought within sects, to say nothing of petty jealousies. If you go into the past, Christian society in Europe was fiercely divided along nationalist and denominational lines.

As far as past memory of subjugation providing the imperative for unity, it is not clear why the subjugation has to last 1000 years. If you look at it in the way you have presented, the Muslims in India were also subjugated by the British for over two centuries, but it did not provide them with the least imperative to preserve their national unity after they obtained their nation state.

The facts you have described are quite correct – the Indian elite’s recourse to compromise as the mechanism to defuse the emerging tensions while the Pakistani elite has resorted to force. But the real question is why did the two elites adopt these different ways? Appealing to an abstract “ethos” or history of subjugation is not convincing. Part of the ironic answer is that the very fragmentation of India left no other option but democratic governance (as argued very cogently by Prata Bhanu Mehta) while the fact that one province in Pakistan had overwhelming superiority led to a different path.

Your reference to the Indian elite also moves us in the right direction. It is the elites in various societies that make the critical decisions not the societies as collectivities. Of course, the elites try and mobilize public opinion behind their interests (witness the crude brainwashing in Pakistan) but a gap still exists. I am sure the attitude toward special economic zones of the decision-making elite in New Delhi would differ considerably from that of a peasant in Trivandrum even though they share a common religion.

2. This issue remains problematic. If every society has a collective opinion then Pakistan should have one. But as you rightly state the national agenda of Pakistan is still undecided. Some want this and some want that. So what is the collective opinion?

I don’t think this is a fruitful line of argument. Societies don’t behave differently because they have different collective opinions. It is more likely that behavioral differences arise out of the different interests of the respective elites who then try and create a collective opinion behind their parochial interests. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.

3. We differ on this point. The British did not come to India because it was rich. They came to trade (because trade was profitable) just as European powers were going all over the world to trade – it was a mercantile age. They were even in the Pitcairn islands although there was no wealth there. Portuguese and Dutch traders were in India before the British. Once they were here they got drawn into the politics because the local Indian rulers tried to use the newcomers in their parochial internal struggles. No doubt they found that it was easy going. You have written that “the British were very devious and we were very foolish as a people.” Once again these generalizations are too broad.

I am not sure what you mean that India was very rich. India had immense riches but they were controlled by a very thin nobility while the majority of the population lived in great poverty and misery. Notice how the rulers of the princely states lived or the Nizam of Hyderabad, reputed to be one of the richest men in the world. But this wealth meant nothing for the peasant in Telengana.

Widespread economic wealth (as opposed to riches) can only be created if the essential infrastructure is in place – roads, rail, bridges, canals, telegraph, education, representative governance. All this was put in place by the British who transformed a decaying feudal society into a proto-modern one. They might have done so for personal gain but in that process they made a lasting contribution.

4. This was just a question that arose in my mind. I will have to read up to know what happened in Spain.

5. On this, I can only refer to the position of Professor Romila Thapar who is ‘critical of what she calls a communal interpretation of Indian history, in which events in the last thousand years are interpreted solely in terms of a notional continual conflict between monolithic Hindu and Muslim communities. She argues that this communal history is "extremely selective" in choosing facts, "deliberately partisan" in interpretation and does not follow current methods of analysis using multiple, prioritized causes.’

In any case, I agree that a way has to be found to coexist. Quite apart from the Muslim-non Muslim angle, one of the major societal failings has been the inability of majorities to coexist amicably with minorities (not necessarily religious minorities). The problems in Ireland, Spain, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are examples.

Anjum Sahib,

I am not put off at all. It is interesting to discuss these topics and we can certainly take it offline if you have any further followups.

1. "You are arguing both sides of a proposition: “Hindu disunity is a part of Hindu ethos” and “They are very risk averse to political instability and fiercely protective of their political unity.” Are you saying that disunity is no longer a part of the Hindu ethos now?"

No, what I am saying is that disunity is a fundamental attribute of hindu society as symbolized by the caste system but there are other fault lines as well including language, ethnicity, petty jealousies of each other etc. For instance, in the late sixties after Nehru and Shastri's death, the elderly Congress leaders (also called the Syndicate) just could not rally behind one person and nominate a leader, such were the petty jealousies. They ended up propping up Indira Gandhi, a relatively inexperienced, lower ranking person from the Nehru family, with the hope of controlling her. Of course, Indira Gandhi gave the royal boot to the Syndicate and became a strong ruler. Similarly in recent times, again Congress leaders cannot rally behind a desi leader, such are the peer level jealousies. As a result, we see the sickening sight of them grovelling to Sonia Gandhi all day long.

This fundamental attribute is counter-balanced by the harsh historical lessons of the past 1000 years, starting from muslim rule but particularly so in the british era. The british played the Indians against each other with such expertise that it has left hindus with a deep rooted fear of western societies that exists to this date. Nehru supported the Russians, not because of any love for communism, but a deep suspicion of neo-imperialism by the west. Its only in recent days that India has warmed up to the US, but even there you see a deep apprehension. A similar fear psychosis (perhaps to a lesser extent) was also against Pakistan, which was erroneously considered as a proxy of muslim aggression in the past, which explains India's utter reluctance to compromise on any territorial issues. The feelings towards Pakistan have certainly softened quite a bit in recent times.

Internally, the Indian elite never lets any situation get out of hand when there are chances of it tearing apart India's unity but it is more than willing to compromise as needed to provide participation to everyone. It always carries out a carrot and stick approach whether it is Kashmir or Punjab or the North-east. You can contrast this with Pakistan's policy in Bangladesh when there seemed to be no mood for compromise and politicians like Bhutto openly supported separation by saying - "Idhar hum, udhar tum!!". That sort of thing is unimaginable in India. Similarly caste reservations have the potential to tear up India, but India has deftly managed to avoid full scale caste wars. On the language front, India agreed to a linguistic state system a long time back, while Pakistan would not adopt a similar step for the Bengalis. The current naxalite menace is also being met in the same manner - tough security action plus negotiations on the side as needed. In fact, India's decision to get rid of feudalism a long time back has kept rural India from going completely ballistic.

Therefore, India's actions as a society and as a country ought to be analyzed along these two attributes - 1. natural propensity to be disunited 2. past memory of subjugation driving an imperative to preserve national unity at all costs

2. "You state that “Muslims have been trying to make sense of what they ended up with after the British left” and they are asking “do we want to be” this or that. Who is the “we” in this?"

I was referring to Pakistani society post partition. Yes, no one thinks as a monolith, but surely there is something along the lines of collective opinions that defines any society, otherwise all nations would behave the same way. The post partition identity crisis of Pakistan is a well documented subject and several pakistanis have routinely commented on the same, including on this forum. Some want it to be secular, some want it to be a theocracy, some want it to lead jihad, others want it to be a liberal, peaceful nation, some want it to focus on Kashmir, others want peace with India etc. The national agenda of Pakistan is still to be settled on.

Since you do mention the mullah crowd, yes they were opposed to the creation of Pakistan. There goal has always been to spread Islam and partition made little sense to them since it would restrict their ability to win more converts. They also knew that hindus were not exactly a dominating type of people and congress leaders like Gandhi gave a lot of support to mullahs.

3. "They were so few that if they had been oppressive they would have been wiped out easily"

I am afraid I completely disagree with you on this. The British were not kind to any peasantry, except perhaps in west punjab. Everywhere else, they imposed ruthless taxation, forced people to change agriculture patterns to suit their colonial exploitation and drove the peasantry to vast numbers of death via famines. There has not been a single famine after 1947. Prior to that, in Bengal and elsewhere there were famines, whose accounts would make your hair stand up. People would beg on the streets to drink the water that you throw out after boiling rice in it. Imagine that!!

India had a been a rich country before the british showed up. In fact they showed up on our shores because we were rich!! By the time they left, we were a bunch of brown beggars. The british hold on India was accomplished only on the basis of ruthless games by setting up one interest group against the other. Essentially they checkmated all Indian ability to fight back by expertly setting off one group against the other.

4. "Muslims also ruled Spain for a very long period but there were no major conversions to Islam – today Spain is a largely Catholic country. Why were there so many conversions in India even though it does not seem that any overt force was used for this purpose?"

The christian reconquest of Spain was accompanied by a ruthless wiping out of Islam. People were given the choice to convert back to Christianity or leave Spain. Otherwise conversions had happened there as well.

Coming back to India, the cause for conversions were many. I do not believe that overt force was behind it, except for a small percentage. There is certainly the Sufi angle, which could be true given the affection that hindus have for many sufis. The hold of hinduism was generally weak in the Pakistan area and Bengal since it was farther away from the Ingo-Gangetic plains. The people there had converted to buddhism in the past, which shows their general dissatisfaction with hinduism. So it was not unexpected that they were more receptive to Islam. The people in the Indo-Gangetic plains, also known as the "Vaikunth" or paradise of the aryans, had very deep rooted devotion to hinduism. That was the reason that conversions were not too many in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Finally there must have been sheer economic opportunism - getting lower taxes or better jobs or keeping existing property by converting and joining ranks with the new ruling class.

5."Muslims are killing Muslims in Pakistan and caste violence still exists in India. Also, I think we make a mistake in looking back at history through the very recent lens of Hindu-Muslim antagonism"

Hindu-muslim relations have always had an undercurrent of antagonism, whether it was a 1000 years back or a 100 years back or if it is today. It is dishonest to deny that. The two faiths and their corresponding ways of life are almost opposite to each other in most situations. By the way, this is not just hindu-muslim relations but in general muslim-nonmuslim relations.

The answer is to find a way to manage these sharp differences and evolve a way to coexist. It is a matter of pride that India did just that. As you have rightly pointed out, by 1857 hindus no longer considered the mughals to be outsiders. In fact, North Indian culture had developed into a collaborative synthesis of muslim-nonmuslim cultures. However, the ability of the british to destroy that unity by playing the communal card very deftly, exposes its weak foundations. The same community that had united India in the first place, ended up demanding a violent division of the same country. They ignored all the historical precedents of hindu disunity, of muslim greatness in ruling the country for 800 years without any counter jihads/crusades and raised a laughable bogey of hindu domination. That reflects on how devious the british were and how foolish we are as a people.

Ranjit ji,

I hope you won’t be put off if I ask some more questions that came to mind as I read your answers: (If you prefer, we can take this offline and just discuss it privately.)

1. You are arguing both sides of a proposition: “Hindu disunity is a part of Hindu ethos” and “They are very risk averse to political instability and fiercely protective of their political unity.” Are you saying that disunity is no longer a part of the Hindu ethos now? If so, what has replaced it?

2. You state that “Muslims have been trying to make sense of what they ended up with after the British left” and they are asking “do we want to be” this or that. Who is the “we” in this? Muslims don’t think as a collective, neither across countries nor within countries. Actually, no one thinks as a collective, neither Muslims nor Hindus nor Christians nor Pakistanis nor Indians. There are always disparate interest groups that are pulling and pushing in different directions. Even at the highly emotional time of the partition of India there were Muslim groups (including, surprisingly, the most Muslim of them) that were opposed to the demand for Pakistan.

3. You state that the “British not only remained socially aloof but proceeded to systematically impoverish India to the point of penury.” I don’t think this will be supported by objective history. In fact, it was only the British that provided after a long time some guarantee of fairness and justice in the Indian country side which is why they were so acceptable to the population for so long. They were so few that if they had been oppressive they would have been wiped out easily. It is ironical, that neither the Hindu nor the Muslim rulers that preceded the British were very kind to the peasantry, not even to their co-religionists. The peasntry existed simply to be exploited by the tax farmers.

4. “Furthermore vast numbers of Hindus had converted to Islam and they needed to be part of the system.” This has prompted a most intriguing line of thought. Muslims also ruled Spain for a very long period but there were no major conversions to Islam – today Spain is a largely Catholic country. Why were there so many conversions in India even though it does not seem that any overt force was used for this purpose?

5. You mention that “the cost of a social revolution can be political disaster as it happened with Russia when communism got dissolved or in Europe with the rise of various ideologies and the accompanying world wars. Hindus in India will never allow that to happen…” The point of a revolution is that nobody sits down and does a cost benefit analysis before launching the action. What the Naxalites are attempting in India today is a kind of a revolution; they are not asking the rest of India whether it would lead to a disaster or not.

I continue to feel that you are using generalizations (Hindus and Muslims as monolithic collectives that think and decide things as collectives) that are too broad. Muslims are killing Muslims in Pakistan and caste violence still exists in India. Also, I think we make a mistake in looking back at history through the very recent lens of Hindu-Muslim antagonism. Even as recent an event as the 1857 Mutiny would show that such a lens confuses the picture. The Mutiny was initiated by Hindus who marched to Delhi to ask a Muslim king to be their leader. It was crushed with the help of Muslim sepoys from the Punjab who remained loyal to the British. Both these aspects make your statement that “Hindus needed 1000 years of butt kicking to get some sense in their head” a problematic one.

With regards,

Anjum Altaf

Anjum sahib,

Here are my answers to your questions -

1. "How would one account for Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka, both great monarchs who successfully united India?"

India's history of 5000 years has seen just a few years of political unity, especially during the hindu period. Mauryas and Ashoka were an exception. Otherwise, hindus were always divided by caste, region, ethnicity and they were politically split over hundreds of kingdoms. Ironically muslims brought in the first extended period of political unity, which contrasts with their latter efforts to break it up in 1947.

2."Why did this realization arise only when the British were leaving? ....why did this realization not occur at the time of the Afghan invasions when the numerical superiority could easily have repelled the invasions?"

Simply put, hindus needed 1000 years of butt kicking to get some sense in their head. Traditionally hindus were not bothered by external invaders since they would settle down and become part of hindu society like it happened with aryans, scythians, greeks, white huns etc. Muslims were the first set of invaders who conquered India but did not melt into hindu society. On the contrary they brought in a rival faith and social order that could eliminate hinduism and eliminate the hindu way of life. Hindus did not realize that for a long time until muslim rule became fully entrenched.

When Afghans were attacking the northwest, most hindus were either watching a tamasha or ignoring the events altogether or outright collaborating with the invaders. In fact, Ghaznavi was encouraged to ransack Somnath temple by rival hindu kings who were jealous of the wealth and prestige of the hindu king who owned the temple. There is only instance at that time when rajputs all over north india and pakistan created a loose confederacy to help out the hindushahi king Anand Pal whose kingdom at Peshwar was battling with Ghaznavi. The present day khokhars, ghakkars, kharrals (all hindus at that time) joined in with the hindushahis along with the rajputs of Rajasthan. However, they lost to Ghaznavi and the confederacy was destroyed. Interestingly the hindushahi descendents are the present day janjuas in Pakistan.

In fact, even when Babur was attacking India, there was no unity. Babur has mentioned as such in Baburnama when he would observe rajput sub-castes cooking separately even on the battlefield on the eve of battle. He has written that people who do not eat with each other will never die for each other, which meant that he was guaranteed to succeed.

Once muslims had consolidated their rule over entire India, hindus realized what they had got into. Unlike the past, hindus would either have to remain servile and accept subjugation or convert. Its another thing that muslims never really tried to replace hinduism in a systematic manner, except for some efforts in the present day pakistan. As a result, hindus managed to hold on to their faith by submitting to political subjugation and coming up with ideological alternatives like sikhism. Still those events left a deep scar on hindus.

The british took the exploitation of indian disunity to its ultimate extreme by exploiting the familiar divide and conquer paradigm to its fullest. While muslims settled down in India and contributed to India's economic strength while remaining socially separate, the british not only remained socially aloof but proceeded to systematically impoverish India to the point of penury. The famines in Bengal and North India, the abject poverty, the absolute pathetic state of India at 1947, finally convined hindus that they had to do something to get out of the 1000 year mess. Nehru and the Congress leaders had a lot of historical perspective which is why they had unanimity about political unity being a strong imperative in a free India. Furthermore vast numbers of hindus had converted to Islam and they needed to be part of the system, hence the adoption of secularism.

3."Then, at the onset of the British departure, the Muslims were convinced, even though they were the descendants of aggressors, they were going to be in a weak position. Therefore, some of them united in the demand for Pakistan. After Pakistan, if the priority of Muslims had been to reestablish the glory of Islam in the subcontinent, they would have remained united as Muslims. But they did not as you rightly point out. So the decision to unite or not is a more complex one than comes out of your analysis."

The muslim motivation for Pakistan was primarily based on an urge to be politically co-equal to hindus in spite of being demographically non equal, and to establish all this in a legal framework before the british departed. In this case, muslims made a major miscalculation. They ignored hindu history. If they had analyzed history, they would have seen that a minority of muslims had effortlessly ruled a majority of hindus due to hindu disunity, which is a part of hindu ethos. Once the british had left, muslims could easily revert to that advantageous state by exploiting differences among hindus along caste, region, ethnicity etc, plus count on help from muslim neighbors. In fact, given the state of coalition politics today in India, I would say that a united India would have had a muslim ruler within a few years of british departure. Therefore, the hasty decision to separate out in two small enclaves was a major step down for muslims given their previous pre-eminent status. Hindu nationalists like Sardar Patel exploited that to the fullest since they realized that creation of Pakistan would solidify hindu interests within India. No wonder Patel was eager to sign on to a deal with Jinnah to get partition done and encouraged Nehru to scuttle Cabinet Mission Plan.

Since then muslims have been trying to make sense of what they ended up with after the british left. Their lack of political unity has been the direct result of their inability to set a proper agenda and direction to Pakistan's destiny in terms of future ideology. Fundamentally the questions are what do we want for our future generations? Do we want to just be a small muslim country happy within our borders? Do we want to get Kashmir and get a little bigger? Do we want to reestablish muslim glory? Do we want to be a leader of the muslim world? Do we want to be a theocratic paradise for religious zealots? This confusion, lack of a proper national mission and differing agendas has resulted in a lack of unity.

4."The motivation of a social revolution is not to keep a country together. A social revolution is a protest against inequalities."

Yes that is true. But the cost of a social revolution can be political disaster as it happened with Russia when communism got dissolved or in Europe with the rise of various ideologies and the accompanying world wars. Hindus in India will never allow that to happen because they are very risk averse to political instability and fiercely protective of their political unity, mainly because of their fears from historical past subjugation. As a result, there are efforts to always compromise and find common ground, provide reservations or coalitions to get everyone together. Even today, Indian military's number one mission objective is not to lose any land, rather than try to gain land. Thats why India will never sign up to any Kashmir solution that involves territorial loss. It all stems from the urge to preserve and defend what we have since we had lost it very badly in the past. We dont want to repeat that mistake again.

Ranjit, Thanks for continuing the discussion. Your comments raise a number of questions that need to be addressed:

1. “the diversity in India, be it along caste, ethnic or linguistic lines is mind boggling. It is impossible to have a monarchial system.”

How would one account for Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka, both great monarchs who successfully united India?

2. “Hindus had suffered 1000 years of imperial rule first under the muslims and then under the british…. As a result, hindus had already realized that being politically disunited meant continuous enslavement.”

Why did this realization arise only when the British were leaving? Given that India had been united under Chandragupta and Ashoka, why did this realization not occur at the time of the Afghan invasions when the numerical superiority could easily have repelled the invasions?

3. “Therefore, for them [Muslims] political unity to defend against aggressors is not a critical choice, since they believed to be descendents of aggressors anyway… The priority is on who can become the leader and perhaps reestablish muslim glory in the subcontinent.”

Muslims existed in India well before the creation of Pakistan. At one time, the British were the aggressors against their dominance but they were unable to unite against that threat. Then, at the onset of the British departure, the Muslims were convinced, even though they were the descendants of aggressors, they were going to be in a weak position. Therefore, some of them united in the demand for Pakistan. After Pakistan, if the priority of Muslims had been to reestablish the glory of Islam in the subcontinent, they would have remained united as Muslims. But they did not as you rightly point out. So the decision to unite or not is a more complex one than comes out of your analysis.

4. “economics was not the fundamental motivation for India to stay together. Hence a social revolution was not necessary for India… So I would say that a social revolution is necessary in Pakistan for it to stay together.”

The motivation of a social revolution is not to keep a country together. A social revolution is a protest against inequalities. Whether the country stays together or not is a contingent outcome.

5. “you have to understand the mindset of the hindus… While muslims had the same ethnic roots as hindus due to conversions, their mindset was always different from hindus.”

I am not convinced that one can generalize so broadly which is why your arguments about unity, etc. raise the above questions. There are many differences within Hindus just as there are within Muslims. Sometimes, various subgroups unite and sometimes they don’t depending upon narrow parochial interests. After all Sirajuddaula is supposed to have been betrayed by Mir Jaffar. We have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the divergent paths in India and Pakistan.

Warm regards, Anjum Altaf

Re:subcontinental#3
"One question to ask would be who did the choosing on behalf of India and Pakistan, and why?"

Very interesting question. Each society evolves towards making collective choices of administration that are an outcome of its history and its future aspirations. India and Pakistan evolved along different directions. Lets analyze why. In the case of India, you have to understand the mindset of the hindus. Hindus had suffered 1000 years of imperial rule first under the muslims and then under the british. They had seen relatively small armies of external invaders take over the entire place exploiting differences over caste, language, ethnicities or just petty jealousies. They had seen their way of life and culture getting massively impacted as they tried to survive the imperial rule. They developed their own defence mechanisms, whether be it collaboration with the rulers, coming up with new religious ideologies like Sikhism, learning English and obtaining education etc. The primary purpose was to survive and retain their way of life.

As a result, hindus had already realized that being politically disunited meant continuous enslavement. That was why Nehru and the Congress were adamant about a strong center and even rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. Secondly the diversity in India, be it along caste, ethnic or linguistic lines is mind boggling. It is impossible to have a monarchial system with a dictator like Musharraf, who can balance the needs of Nagaland vs the needs of Kerala. Therefore, India could either go for a communist system or a democratic system to accomplish political unity. India's elites chose democratic system mainly because it accomplished political unity with the least amount of turmoil and violence, while promising social justice and a place at the table for everyone.

Pakistan on the other hand evolved differently. While muslims had the same ethnic roots as hindus due to conversions, their mindset was always different from hindus. They believed and still continue to believe that they are winners, the top dogs in the subcontinent. If the british had not come, they would continue to rule the place. Therefore, for them political unity to defend against aggressors is not a critical choice, since they believed to be descendents of aggressors anyway. Moreover, the size and diversity of Pakistan is relative far smaller than in India. Hence political unity, power sharing and transition of power are not exactly priorities for the elites. The priority is on who can become the leader and perhaps reestablish muslim glory in the subcontinent. That impulse has driven all kinds of adventurers into grabbing power at any cost, even if it has meant a breakup of the nation in 1971.

From an economic point of view, India has been a late bloomer since economics was not the fundamental motivation for India to stay together. Hence a social revolution was not necessary for India. Of course, now the economy has become the biggest factor for Indians to pull together as it has turned out to be a huge positive effect of political unity given the economies of scale. In Pakistan, since political unity was not an imperative in itself, economics has played a bigger role, which explains why the Bengalis did not hesitate to leave the union when their interests were not met. India had far poorer people and still continues to do so, but most of them have never wanted to split up India. So I would say that a social revolution is necessary in Pakistan for it to stay together, but it is not necessary for India. Pakistan must evolve a system that motivates people to have political unity by providing them a seat at the table.

Ranjit, Thanks for your comment. The simpler an explanation, the better it is and perhaps mine is more complex than it needs to be. But, one can also err on the side of over-simplification which makes the solutions seem easier than they really are.

I am not convinced that societies “choose” democracy or any other system like they would choose a brand of cereal in a supermarket. These are outcomes of long periods of struggle often marked by violent conflicts, e.g., the English Civil War, and the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions. The key point of the paper is that the subcontinent is unique in that a social revolution has not preceded a political revolution which explains a lot of the contemporary reality there. The paper also tries to explain the reasons for the differences within the subcontinent. I feel it would be too simple to say that India chose democracy while Pakistan chose military rule. One question to ask would be who did the choosing on behalf of India and Pakistan, and why?

I am also not convinced by the example of China. First, China underwent a social revolution getting rid of the old elites; nobody sat down and chose the perfect system. Second, all stakeholders do not have a place at the table – the Chinese success is built on the exploitation of its rural population; it is perhaps the only country now that has an internal passport system discriminating against its rural citizens, hence the increasing social tensions. Third, if no one cared about democracy one would not have seen the Tiananmen massacre. Fourth, the seeming stability of the system was preceded by huge catastrophes – the Great Leap Forward led to the death of about 40 million people and the Cultural Revolution wiped out two generations of intellectuals. I would urge you to read the analysis by Edward Friedman (Is China a success while India is a failure? World Affairs, Fall 2004).

In explaining the success or failure of any system, one cannot avoid dealing with the historical path it has traversed. The USSR also looked very successful and stable at one time but the underlying dynamic at work did not prove to be sustainable.

Anjum Altaf

Interesting.

Ciao

Mr. Anjum, you are needlessly making things too complex. What you need for development is a self-sustaining system, proper checks and balances, orderly transition of power and a place at the table for all stakeholders. Thats the basic requirement for the long-term successful administration of a nation, whether it is a democratic or a communist system. Each society tries to figure out what works to accomplish the above. Western countries, the far east and India have chosen democracy as the vehicle to accomplish the above. China has chosen communism, while Islamic and African countries basically have monarchies.

Whenever the above requirements are violated, you have chaos, confusion, uncertainty and large scale violence. For e.g. Pakistan is a mess not because it is extremely poor, but because it does not have a proper system of transitioning power, there are zero checks and balances and most stakeholders have no say in the system. India has all the above except for the stakeholders bit, which is why its economic progress has been poor relative to its potential. You can see that changing as the backward castes are beginning to grab power and get a greater share of the spoils. Today everyone from brahmins to dalits are desperate to get their kids educated and put them into white-collar jobs.

The success of China is the biggest proof of my thesis. China has indeed given all its stakeholders a place at the table. Also it has created a stable political system with smooth transition of power. As a result, no one seems to really care about democracy as long as they are getting rich and living the good life.