Tuesday October 24, 2017
Home India Rise of the I...

Rise of the Indian economy: Awaiting a neo-Hindu rate of growth

0
112

thumbnail4

By Gaurav Sharma

Yesterday, India celebrated its 68th year of Independence. From tenderly treading baby steps in the nascent stages of nationhood to galloping briskly towards a greater stake in the global economy, the Indian journey has been a roller-coaster ride.

Monikers such Shining India and the Bright spot highlight the growing economic clout of the country and arouse global interest in India, both as a market and an investment hotspot.

What was once the tedious Hindu rate of growth of 1 per cent in the first three decades following a century of exploitative British colonization has now rocketed into a burgeoning 7 per cent growth trajectory. When the World Bank expects India to top its growth outlook charts for 2015-2016, with the economy growing steadily between 7.5-8.3 per cent, it further cements the India’s rise as an economic power.

How did we traverse the topsy-turvy journey, through the crest and the trough? How did we reach the current state of being?

After Independence, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (through the statistician Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis) undertook a socialist reform of the country. Skeptical of his colonial experience, Nehru adopted a protectionist economic policy, under which development came largely under the ambit of the government. Central planning, regulation and import substitution emerged as the key features of the Five Year Plans based upon the Soviet model.

Nehru’s reply to industrialist JRD Tata, “Never talk to me of profit. It is a dirty word”, emboldens the denigrating and suspicious mindset of politicos towards the private sector prevailing during that time. Industries such as steel mining, insurance among a host of other industries were controlled and run by the public sector.

In 1965, the Green Revolution was ushered in, to facelift the agriculture sector. Use of high yield variety seeds (HYV) and genetically modified (GM) crops not only resulted in India achieving self-reliance in food security but also stealthily brought the problem of income disparity and institutional breakdown to the fore.

Although the Morarji Desai government of 1977 did ease restrictions on the economy by removing price controls and reduction of tax rate, by the end of the decade India was staring itself in the dark pit of external payment crisis. With the disintegration of Soviet Union and a sharp decline in oil prices, India’s balance of payments (BoP) had enlarged to dangerous proportions.

India was forced to borrow a heavy sum of Rs 28,000 crore from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the largest sum for any developing nation at the time.

In the 1980’s, the Indira Gandhi government was successful in stalling the prospective deterioration underlined in the loan conditions, by unleashing a slew of reform measures such as reducing import duties, delicensing industry and revamping the public sector. Transformation was on it way.

Then in 1991, a breakthrough was achieved by Narasimha Rao while working in tandem with the then finance minister Manmohan Singh. Public monopoly came to an end, interest rates and tariffs were reduced, license raj was quashed and the country was opened up to the world. Globalization, Privatization and Liberalization emerged as the motto of the new dispensation.

The new millennium (particularly the period 2003-2007), saw India touch a high 9 percent growth rate, with Goldman Sachs predicting India to become the third largest economy by 2025.

Despite donning the hat of the new global economic power, India’s fundamentals were tested during the 2008-09 recession. Although it managed to brace through the economic cyclone, in the aftermath of the disaster, India’s growth rate had tumbled down below 5 per cent.

High current account deficit, weak rupee and a sluggish manufacturing sector aggravated the situation. Furthermore, the tapering of quantitative easing in the US meant that foreign investment into the country ebbed. India’s global standing took a hit even as the ease-of-doing-business index ranked at an abysmal 142 out of 189 countries.

Fast track to today. And with the change in political power, things have started changing. With almost 15 years of developmental experience behind his back, Narendra Modi has  promised a slew of reforms aimed at reviving India’s economic muscle.

Critical sectors of the economy have been opened-up to woo foreign investors and to revivify the ailing sectors. FDI in defense has been increased to 100 per cent and insurance FDI limit has spiked up from 26 to 49 per cent.

Not to get fixated with the idea of growth as the sole plank of development, Modi has also vied for social initiatives. This is in line with what Amartya Sen (a notable critic of Modi) believes economics to be; a value of freedom not limited to a utilitarian concept of wealth and income.

On his Independence Day speech, Modi continued with his hawkeye focus on development and boisterously claimed that his government had scaled down the complex labour laws into 4 simplified codes; safety, social security, wage and industrial relations. It will be interesting to see how the grand plan actualizes.

If Kisan Kalyana Yojana ends up as mere rechristening of the agriculture ministry rather than a new scheme, Modi’s credibility will surely take a hit. Dreaming of an entrepreneurial revolution and setting a target of three years for rural electrification plans are ambitious plans indeed. Still, in the midst of the precocious focus on development, the key area of electoral reforms has been left untouched.

This only shows how adept Modi is when it comes to towing the precarious line of economic reforms and social development–of leadership and populism–with much alacrity. If only as a photo-op, critical social issues have not been left sidelined.

Perhaps this how the neo-hindu statesman works. When, and if he walks the talk, can we expect a new neo-Hindu rate of growth?

Next Story

‘India Won the 1962 War and Gandhiji was not Murdered’: Are New Textbooks in India Misinforming the Youth?

How can the youth know the struggles of the ancestors of the nation if they believe that we have a all-too-glorified past?

0
29
New Textbooks
New School Textbooks in India are not telling the real history to youth. Wikimedia

August 25, 2017: Fake news has become the biggest evil to true information. Exaggerated/ altered facts to support an ideological agenda has become increasingly common, combined with photoshopped images and fabricated videos.

But this misinformation when breaches the sacredness of education and knowledge, it takes the form of the most dangerous thing. Such fabricated tales are now available in the new textbooks in India.

History, in particular, has been twisted and told to young students of India. It is unfortunate that the textbooks which are to shape the able youth of the nation and telling outright lies.

ALSO READ: Politics and Education: A Relationship that contributes a lot in shaping our Future

Below are some of the incidents that have been explained differently than the reality:

THE MUGHALS

The Hindus have always hated the Mughal chapter of the Indian History. The Mughal Dynasty came to India for conquest and occupied the majority of the nation. The Dynasty which came from Central Asia ruled over the Indian subcontinent from 1526-1857 after which the White people took over. The slavery of Hindus in their own nation is a sad but true fact. The Mughal rule was also perceived as the authoritarian nature of Islam, although the interests that the dynasty was pursuing were purely political. The people who opposed the Mughal Dynasty in India included Chattrapati Shivaji, the Maratha King, along with Assam Kings Commander Lachit Borphukan, are well respected among the Hindu sect.

There was also an incident involving Mughal King Akbar and Rajput Chieftain Maharana Pratap. Maharana Pratap rejected becoming subordinate to Akbar. Hence, a war was waged which later came to be known as the Battle of Haldighati. Although Maharana’s Rajput forces gave a tough fight, it was outnumbered by Akbar’s huge military.

In July 2017, India Today reported that in the Class X textbooks of history, it is said that it was the Rajput forces that defeated the Mughals in the battle. This change was approved by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education during the period of revising state textbooks.

MAHATMA GANDHI

Nowhere in the Class VIII textbooks do the students find the story of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. The book does explore Gandhi’s life span, but it does not inform how the father of the nation was killed by Nathuram Godse. The Rajasthan Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal has published the textbook.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

The same textbook that has omitted Godse’s name has also forgotten Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first PM and the longest one at that. While Nehru’s decisions during his leadership are of various debates, the book has not discussed the first PM and his role in reconstructing a newly independent and divided nation. However, the book has extensively mentioned the First President Rajendra Prasad and Sardar Patel. Indian Express reported how the political ideology has played a role here to hide the true picture of history. Nehru, for all his secular ideas and a different idea of the country, which was not so popular among some sects.

1962 WAR BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA

India was taken off guard by an attack from the Chinese troops in 1962. India, which was still recovering from independence, lost embarrassingly. In the recent Dokhlam standoff, Chinese media has reminded India of the humiliating defeat. Needless to say, the 1962 Indo-Sino war left a mark on Indians.

But in Madhya Pradesh’s Sanskrit Textbooks for Class VIII students, it is claimed that India won the war. The book titled ‘Sukritika’ explicitly states, “What famously came to be known as Sino-India war of 1962 was won by India against China,” reports Times of India. The textbook is published by Kriti Prakashan and is used at CBSE affiliated schools in Madhya Pradesh.

THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY

Indian Express had also reported the dire need for improvement in Maharashtra. Important events of world history (and not just western history) such as the French and American Revolution, Magna Carta, Greek Academia, etc. are all replaced by the glorification of the Maratha dynasty.

These incidents are shameful when viewed from a citizen’s lens. How can one expect to believe knowledge and intellect when information itself is a lie? How can the youth know the struggles of the ancestors of the nation if they believe that we have an all-too-glorified past?


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.

Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate

Next Story

David Frawley Highlights PM Modi’s Respect for Indian Culture which Pandit Nehru nearly Gave Away to the Marxists

"Delhi elite, which though located in India, kept their minds residing outside the country."

0
29
PM Modi and Indian Culture
David Frawley is the Director of American Institute of Vedic Studies. Wikimedia
  • Nehru had affinity with Communists and Marxists
  • Politically independent India continued to be dependent on the west for intellectual progress
  • Nehru and his followers rejected India’s past and envisioned a different nation away from its important culture

August 22, 2017: India’s culture has been its representative in the global arena. The cultural background of the country can be traced back to thousands of years. The Vedas, written thousands of years ago, still dictate our lifestyle and thoughts.

But this remarkable cultural heritage was infused with Marxism and Communism by India’s leftist leaders. David Frawley, in his recent article, traces the impact of leadership on Indian traditional culture.

But, Pandit Vamadeva Shastri also known as David Frawley- the Director of American Institute of Vedic Studies observes how the exclusive Indian culture was outsourced to the left by Pandit Nehru. “Congress outsourced education and cultural development to the far left, Marxists and Communists, with which Nehru had much affinity,” says Frawley in his website vedanet.com. Nehru was vocal about his different idea of the country that goes away from its genuine culture. Nehru, along with his followers, rejected the Indian past.

Also Read: Padma Bhushan David Frawley points out Christian Missionaries’ assault on Hindu Dharma

Although the country had become politically independent, the intellectual progress continued to be dependent on the west, courtesy of the “Delhi elite, which though located in India, kept their minds residing outside the country.” Traditional Indian culture was criticized by these very people.

Indira Gandhi cannot be said to have continued this trend, but she too “supported the same westernized elite for whom Indian civilization was a dangerous myth to be eliminated for modern progress,” writes David Frawley.

Dr. Frawley also highlights that the influence of Marxism on Indian education was known to very few people in the West. Additionally, the West was also unaware of the socialist stand of the Indian economy.

It was the RSS through the expression of BJP that sought to retain Indian values and culture. But the efforts proved futile as it was perceived backward and antique to stick to Indian cultures. As David Frawley rightly observes, “Much of this was owing to Marxist propaganda that has always demonized its opponents, which the Congress dominated media gladly followed.”

There was hope in 1999 when BJP took the power through PM Vajpayee, but not much changed in the mindset of the nation. Rather, “India fell back into the old leftist rule with a vengeance and a massive corruption and nepotism under the UPA in 2004 that continued for ten years,” notes Dr. Frawley.

The 2014 elections saw the formation of Modi government in India. India’s new leader, Narendra Modi, came to national politics with “the power of vision, personal charisma, a forward development agenda and tremendous work to usher in a new India.”

Modi envisions a technologically advanced India through older Indian ethos. The PM plans on introducing “social media, cashless society, smart cities and a radically improved infrastructure.”

David Frawley acknowledges Modi’s love for Indian traditions. The PM has come up with a lot of programs to help the poor masses of the country. “He is not afraid to be a Hindu or to attend Hindu functions, while at the same time excelling as a modern technocrat,” explores David Frawley.

Modi’s beliefs in Hinduism are not confined to sectarian thoughts, rather, a broad spiritual pursuit of “Yoga, meditation, universal consciousness, and self-realization.”

David Frawley believes that humanity can be inspired through a renovated and revitalized India. The Nehruvian idea of India is slowly dying as PM Modi builds a competitive India in sync with its traditions.

– prepared by Saksham Narula of NewsGram. Twitter @Saksham2394


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt. 

Next Story

Nehru Largely Responsible for Indo-China Border Dispute

Jawaharlal Nehru was a big failure in international relations as evident from his being the pioneer in spoiling India’s relations with China and creating the Kashmir issue with Pakistan

0
143
Jawaharlal Nehru
Jawaharlal Nehru signing the Indian constitution. Wikimedia

– by Gaurav Tyagi

New Delhi, August 19, 2017: Indian and Chinese troops are locked in a confrontation, since mid-June on a piece of territory claimed by both China and Bhutan.

This dispute is a tripartite one, involving India, China and Bhutan. The aforesaid terrain is claimed by Bhutan, which has no diplomatic ties with Beijing.

India and Bhutan have a treaty of friendship dating back to 1949. This gives India complete influence over Thimphu’s defense and foreign policy.

The stand-off appears irresolvable with India refusing to withdraw its troops back to its side of the international border and China insisting that diplomacy would only be possible once, Indian troops move back.

India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval had a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi on 27th July. It was the first high-level meeting between India and China since, the aforementioned military stand-off between these two nations, which started on 16th June.

Unfortunately, this meeting also failed to resolve the deadlock.

The Chinese accuse India of trespassing into the Chinese territory while the Indian side maintains that it just responded to Bhutan’s request for help.

ALSO READ: Hindu American Foundation (HAF) Releases Online Forms for Second Bullying Survey of Hindu American Youth

India suffered a defeat at the hands of China in the 1962 war between both these countries. This bitter memory still continues to haunt the Indian policy makers.
It’s therefore imperative to analyze the situation leading to the Indo-China battle during 1962 because one cannot face the future with confidence/clarity unless the ghosts of the past are buried.

Australian journalist, Neville Maxwell made portions of the Henderson Brooks report public by putting it on his blog in March 2014.

This report was an internal Indian army enquiry into its loss to China in the 1962 war. Maxwell was the New Delhi correspondent for ‘The Times’, London during that period.
The report was compiled by Lt. General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P.S. Bhagat.
Successive Indian governments have refused to make the report public because it rightly proves that Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India instigated the 1962 war with China.

Indians grow up with the narrative that China attacked India in 1962. This was a trick used by Nehru to enrage public attitude in India against China.

The so called ‘McMahon line’ on the border between China and India is just an Indian claim from the legacy of British imperialism.

Britishers deceptively ensured that India, post-independence inherit a border dispute with China. They did it by moving into the Chinese territory in the Northeast during the 1940’s in spite of repeated complaints by the Chinese government in this regard.

The Chinese wanted to settle the matter of McMahon line. Zhou Enlai, the first Premier of the People’s Republic of China visited India in 1960 asking for an agreement on the McMahon line but due to Nehru’s rigid and illogical stand, no agreement on this issue could take place.

Nehru refused to negotiate with the Chinese. His adamant stand was; “We will decide where the boundary is. It’s not negotiable. Chinese have to accept”.
The Henderson Brooks report clearly mentions that the absurd ‘forward policy’ of Nehru, directing Indian troops to patrol; ‘show the Indian flag’ and establish posts as ‘far forward as possible’ from the existing positions resulted in the Indo-China war of 1962.

BJP also blamed Nehru for the 1962 fiasco. A prominent leader of BJP, Ravi Shankar Prasad in March 2014 asked for the Henderson Brooks report to be made public. BJP under the leadership of Modi won the 2014 parliamentary elections with overwhelming majority.

Modi government is not dependent on any other political party for its survival in the Indian Parliament. Modi must therefore, take decisions, which are in national interest rather than trying to preserve the falsely created lofty image of Nehru.

ALSO READ: Challenges to the Narendra Modi government before the Upcoming 2019 Elections

Past Congress governments in India didn’t do anything in this regard since, Congress party comprises of only sycophants of Nehru clan. They do not have the guts to criticize Nehru and his failed policies.

Modi should make the Henderson Brooks report public and lift the ban imposed on Neville Maxwell’s book; ‘India’s China War’ imposed by the erstwhile Congress government to safeguard the reputation of Nehru in the eyes of the Indian public.

This would go a long way in initiating a meaningful dialogue between India and China resulting in the final resolution of the border dispute to the satisfaction of both nations.
National boundary negotiations are easy, if both sides meet with an open-minded ‘give and take’ attitude. It’s an historical opportunity for Modi to leave his mark on the ‘sands of time’ as the boldest Indian PM, who courageously corrected the blunder committed by Nehru.

– The author is a Master Degree holder in International Tourism & Leisure Studies from Netherlands and is based in China.