PK mode to India's Growth

India at 70 in a PK mode 

Recently, Rahul Gandhi of INC had an interaction on India at 70 discussing a number of issues at LKYSPP. An informed polity should be discussing the issues raised, but the larger discourse has been limited to a question by one PK (not the vintage PK, those interested for a Sunday tête-à-tête may have a peek here). While I should not be spending my Sunday in a PK mode, but got a bit carried away. Hence, if you find something incoherent, then you know whom to blame. In the same vein, and in all fairness, the credit to any coherence will have nothing to do with being reborn (Asian or otherwise).

An analysis of comparing India's growth with that of the world has already been done by Maitreesh Ghatak (of LSE) and Amitabh Dubey.  I thought of exploring the numbers further either because I had nothing else to do or because I wanted to avoid doing something else.  True, I wanted to play around with the numbers to give some benefit of doubt to PK. However, I unequivocally state that this has no conflict of interest because of being stuck in a PK mode on a Sunday. 

Benefit of Doubt

Having done some work on decomposing poverty change by bringing in population or because of the call for MANUSH in measuring HDI (see its IvU version), I had a feeling that the reference to growth or was it to PK (even if not of the vintage type) was perhaps in per capita terms. This is my first PK benefit of doubt.  

I resort to the data provided by the World Bank through World Development Indicators. I make  use of GDP per capita in constant 2010 US$ terms with data available  from 1960 to 2016 providing us with simple annual average growth rates. From the 56 years of GDP per capita growth rates, India has been having a growth greater than that of the World in 40 years and it has been doing so continuously since 2001.

While it is true that Rahul Gandhi's family has not been in the helm of powers (as Prime Minister of India) since 2001, but then there are phases when Inida has fared well when their family was in the helm of affairs than when others were at the helm of affairs. For instance, in Table 1 as per column Pr1 (proportion of years when per capita growth rate of GDP for India was greater than that for World) Jawaharlal Nehru (JN) and Indira Gandhi's first term (IG1) fare better than that of Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS+) and this seems to hold even for the annual average per capita GDP growth rate for their respective periods (Gr1). This takes me to my second PK benefit of doubt.

I have a queasy feeling that the comparison was not about the forefathers of Rahul Gandhi and those of others because that sounds inappropriate even in a PK mode. In fact, the other day, I overheard some people in a PK mode discussing among themselves that, at times, being in a PK mode may lead to some nuisance, but under no circumstances would they hit below the belt. And, pitting someone's forefathers with some others' forefathers is so below the belt. In any case, it does not prove any point to discuss the growth performance under Lal Bahadur Shastri when the country had to face a war and drought in that period and that too by pitting one Congress Prime Minister by another. One is of the opinion that the intention was perhaps to compare growth regimes between Congress and Non-Congress Prime Ministers.

Table 1 India's Growth Rate in comparison to that of the World under different Prime Ministers: 1961-2016
PMs	Pr_In>Wo	Gr_In	Gr_Wo	Gr_LnM
JN	41.2	2.5	3.4	2.1
LBS+	35.9	-1.0	3.8	3.8
IG1	37.9	1.4	2.6	3.7
MD+	64.4	-0.1	2.2	1.8
IG2	82.6	3.1	0.4	0.7
RG	77.0	3.6	2.1	1.8
VP+	69.7	2.1	0.8	-0.1
PV	89.2	3.6	0.8	0.7
IKG+	45.6	3.5	2.0	2.9
ABV	83.8	4.2	1.6	2.8
MS	100.0	6.2	1.6	4.8
NM	100.0	6.3	1.5	2.7
Notes: PMs denotes Prime Ministers, Pr_In>Wo denotes proportion of period India's per capita GDP is greater than  that for World. Gr_In, Gr_Wo and Gr_LnM denote the annual average growth rate of per capita GDP for India, World, and low and middle income countries, respectively, for the period that the PMs have been in office. JN refers to Jawaharlal Nehru from 01/01/61 to 27/05/64 (earlier years since 15/08/47 could not be included for data limitation). LBS+ refers to Lal Bahadur Shastri and two tenures of Gulzarilal Nanda as acting PM for 13 days each (the combined period is from 27/05/64 to 24/01/66). IG1 refers to Indira Gandhi's first term from 24/01/66 to 24/03/77. MD+ refers to Morarji Desai and Charan Singh (combined period is from 24/03/77 to 14/01/80). IG2 refers to Indira Gandhi's second term from 14/01/30 to 31/10/84. RG refers to Rajiv Gandhi's term from 31/10/84 to 02/12/89. VP+ refers to the terms of Vishwanath Pratap Singh and Chandra Shekhar (combined period is from 02/12/89 to 21/06/91). PV refers to PV Narasimha Rao's term from  21/06/91 to 16/05/96. IKG+ refers to the terms of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (first term of 16 days), HD Deve Gowda (324 days) and IK Gujral (332 days) and the combined period is from 16/05/96 to 19/03/98. ABV refers to Atal Bihari Vajpayee's second term from 19/03/98 to 22/05/04. MS refers to Manmohan Singh's term (from 22/05/04 to 26/05/14). NM refers to Narendra Modi's term from 26/05/14 to 31/12/16, that is, the period for which information is available. Source: Calculated by author based on data from World Development Indicators, World Bank and Former Primer Ministers, Prime Ministor's Office, Government of India.

One observes from Table 1 that there have been some Congress regimes that have been doing relatively better than Non-Congress regimes. Note that Indira Gandhi's second term and also the term of Rajiv Gandhi fared better than the terms of MD+ (Morarji Desai and Charan Singh), VP+ (Vishwanath Pratap Singh and Chandra Shekhar) and IKG+ (Atal Bihari Vajpayee's first term, HD Deve Gowda, and Inder Kumar Gujral). The term of PV Narasimha Rao and also of Manmohan Singh fared better than that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's second term. One also observes that the growth under the Prime Ministership of Narendra Modi in its initial years (for which we have data) has also done relatively better than the earlier regimes. While this is important, it is not the point of discussion in a PK mode.  This is my third PK benefit of doubt - the question on comparative growth in India at 70 was not about scoring a political brownie point. At times, self goals can happen in a PK mode, but that is another matter.

Comparing India's growth with the World that would have a greater base may be advantageous for India to show a relatively higher growth rate. Hence, I concede my final PK benefit of doubt and propose comparing with growth rates for low and middle income countries also. It is observed from Table 1 that the the annual average per capita growth rate of GDP for India (Gr1) when compared with that of the World (Gr2) and low and middle income countries (Gr3) under different regimes shows that India has fared better since 1980s, that is from Indira Gandhi's second term and thereafter. Another moot point that emerges is that prior to the 1980s India's growth rate was always relatively lower than that of the World, but fared better than the low and middle income countries under Jawaharlal Nehru.  Keeping that aside, a limited understanding of the data analysed indicates that a momentum or break from the past was initiated in the 1980s, the momentum continued in the 1990s (PV Narasimha Rao's liberalisation initiatives followed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee's India shining), and it gained further speed in the last fifteen years (Manmohan Singh in two Avataar's of United Progressive Alliance, and Narendra Modi's juggernaut). As the growth trajectory continues it will raise other concerns, particularly on the distributional front like the other juggernaut with farmers on their way from Nashik to Mumbai.

Firki remarks
The firki discussion above is from a PK mode. Those interested in a more serious and detailed discussion on episodes of growth along with a discussion of spaces earmarked for deals, rent and political should look up Sabyasachi Kar and Kunal Sen's The Political Economy of India's Growth Episodes (for a quick initiation to the book see this review).


Click on for an earlier note on PK and firki.

An open letter from an ordinary citizen

The general elections have been concluded in India. It is a foregone conclusion that her next Prime Minister will be the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) Mr Narendra MODI. Much has been said and there are two broad possibilities that one foresees. The best-case scenario is the 'Making Of Democratic Institutions', an euphemism that I use for development, governance and all that the supporters are enthused about. As against this, the worst-case scenario is that it would 'Mar (nay, M...) Our Democracy Inevitably', an euphemism that I use for crony capitalism and divisiveness among others that many others fear. For both these scenarios, the acronyms match with the last name of our Prime Minister.

In this MODI vs MODI diatribe, the development vis-a-vis crony capitalism discussion will continue to remain a matter of interpretation and ideological moorings and the debate will be difficult to conclude. There will also be differences of opinion from withing the ruling party and its affiliates and one has to see which direction it takes. The so-called Gujarat-model or the trumpeted Kerala-model. Well, one has to take the best of both worlds and make Jagdish Bhagwati and Amartya Sen come to an agreement.

The contentious part will be juxtaposing governance and divisiveness. Ideally speaking, any polarization leading to divisiveness anywhere should be considered as a failure of governance. However, from a practical consideration it is possible that the government reaches out to a larger section while ignoring a smaller section. What is more, the principle of exclusion could be based on caste, class, gender, religion and other such identities. If these fears are addressed they will definitely not exorcise the ghosts of the past, but they will bode well for the country's future. Where will we head to? Only time will tell.

In reality, the actual path will be somewhere in between. Politically, if extreme adversities do not come in the way, the future looks like advantage BJP. It is hear that I am concerned as an ordinary citizen because for an effective democracy we need a credible and responsible opposition, which is missing. True, the drubbing of 2014 will lead to soul-searching by all parties, but it is difficult to know what would emerge.

The Congress still seems to have a proportion of population voting for them. Perhaps they identify them with the freedom movement or because of their loyalty to the family. However, if the party has to come-back then it has to go beyond these loyal voters and for that it needs to get out of dynastic politics and develop its grassroots organisation - a tall order indeed.

This is also true for the multitude of regional parties that have lost. They need to get back to their drawing board and re-invent themselves. Those who have withstood the change will end up supporting the ruling alliance because of the dynamics of centre-state relationships, but also because of their personal vested interests. 

Today, the only party that seems to be articulating against vested interest in word and deed is the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). But then some of their elected representatives from Delhi seem to have developed cold-feet with the prospect of loosing a fresh election and are clamouring for a fresh go at government-formation. If hastily resigning was a sign of immaturity then their trying to get back to power again when they do not have the strength and after the recent drubbing will be identified with opportunism. This is a catch-22 situation for them.

AAP may try their old style referendum to know what people in Delhi want, but even if people want they cannot form a government because either BJP or Congress has to agree to that arrangement. In any case, BJP fresh with a victory may now like to go for a fresh election and this time AAP will have a tough time.

Yes, AAP did increase its vote share in Delhi, but it has also lost some supporters and the BJP has increased its share by a larger proportion. Will AAP be able to get back those votes that moved away from it if there is a fresh election? Will it be able to add votes from those who did not vote for them or BJP? Will it be able to counter the new BJP campaign that will also have their government at the centre? Will it have resources and volunteers to campaign for it if there is a fresh election? 

At the national level, obtaining resources and volunteers will be essential for building up a strong organisational structure. Where are they going to get this from in the next five years? How does it plan to address vested interests within their organisational structure? Does it plan to build alliances or at least seat sharing or not putting up candidates if another party seems to have a reasonable candidate who may have disagreements with them but subscribes to some people-centric principles and is not corrupt?

What are the plans that they have for the four constituencies that they have won in Punjab. In principle they are against use of MP and MLA funds. This will be an ideal set-up if the government is also theirs. However, with the conventional governance structure it would be better if the candidates for these four constituencies use the funds in a meaningful way. 

As an outside lay citizen, the advantage of AAP is that it has taken into its fold people with different views and ideologies. This would give space for internal deliberations and space for multiple views. This itself makes it like the Congress party of yore and it should take advantage of this.

Idealism is good and people respect AAP for that. However, practical considerations are also important. For instance, emphasis need not be on legislation always and that too when one does not have a majority, but rather focusing on governance and achieving many other things that could be possible without legislation.

To sum up, the future seems to be advantage BJP. Congress and the multitude of regional satraps need soul-searching. AAP that once provided hope and aspirations to some will have a lot of questions to answer. It is a churning between the Congress, the regional satraps and AAP that could perhaps give a reasonable opposition. Let us wait and see.

My other recent election related musings are:

A tall order there for pluralism to resurface

ABC of Indian Elections 2014

Rawlsian veil, Smithian impartiality and Indian Elections of 2014

'Development' as Threat

It is not poverty, but 'development' that is the greatest threat to society, polity, humanity and environment. This is so because the notion of development envisaged is very narrowly defined leading to a misplaced emphasis on superficial aspects and is focused on the 'economy' which also is very narrowly defined. It follows that the impacts from such an endeavour are at best illusory as if in a mirage. This has led to a neglect of real aspects and thereby neglecting people and other matters of relevance. 

This comes as a reaction to the picture posted above, that I saw in facebook. The caption of the picture is as follows.

Face of Development and Plight of the Displaced:

These couple were newly married when the Hirakud Dam was constructed in the 50s. They were forced to vacate their village as the reservoir water started entering the village. They gathered all that they could and carried to a new place which the Govt. said they should go and stay. They built their own hut with local materials like twigs, grass and clay. They owned 5 acres of land in their original village but are landless now. They are wage earners at this age!!

Fifty years on, that is still their fate. The government says this is development. The couple asks, 'is it?'

This, of course, questions the interpretation of Indira Gandhi's speech, as the then Prime Minister of India, at the UN Conference in Stockholm in 1972 which some people equate with tagging poverty being a threat to environment. And, of course, questions the narrow interpretation of the  governments in India as also elsewhere on the meaning of development.