Bad Roads: an Indian Tradition?

India is notorious for its roads. Bad roads are endemic to India. Roads are poorly designed, poorly surfaced and of course, are quite narrow in proportion to the traffic flow. India is chaotic, has always been chaotic. And on its roads, it is at its anarchic best.

The British tried to change that under their rule, but we’ve tried hard to return to the Tradition since then. The new highway projects (at the personal initiative of Vajpayee, and pursued by Manmohan Singh) are labouring to create good roads across the country. But would it succeed in breaking from the past tradition?

A couple of months back, I traveled on one of the finest stretch of the National Highway that runs from Mumbai to Delhi. This was my 7th drive on the stretch (450 km), which was completed 3 years back. (However, the entire 1200 km road isn’t ready in 5 years!) To my astonishment this time, a smooth 70 km track was already ripped off. At other places, shanties had come up wherever the highway passed a little town, spilling cattle, bicycles & bizarre local versions of transport on the so called “speedway”. And of course, the occasional sprint across the road by a veiled/ghoonghat woman & her man shook you behind the wheel.

On less fortunate versions of the highway that I described above, things can be worse. On little bridges that take you across the monsoon drains (nullahs or river – depending upon one’s perception), vehicles from opposite directions frequently lock horns on who goes first. And our traffic policemen (mostly hapless) do absolutely nothing to bring any order of any kind. If a 75-tonne truck blocks your way by sticking to the fastest lane, you overtake him from the wrong side, decelerate your vehicle in front of his, forcing him to stop. Next you give him a little lecture on traffic rule and if he is arrogant, get back to your car and take a verbal shot on his women, before speeding away. These are standard procedures for Indian roads.

Tavernier’s description of Indian freight transport and roads are useful. He traveled to India in 1665 (AD) and found that transport is the prerogative of certain tribes, because it involves enormous skills. Skill was required to manage large caravans, bad roads, robbers, extorting local governments and of course the necessary supplies for the animals. These tribes traveled all their lives, with wives and children. A caravan consisted of 10 thousand to 12 thousand oxen and a couple of hundred men (many armed)! And when a large caravan met face on another, there was trouble. The narrow road meant only one could pass at a time. For 12 thousand oxen to pass, it could take 3 days. Often, the two caravan forces sought to solve it by sword. Roads meant blood.

Are we going to change? Ever?

Pseudo Activists and Pseudo Intellectuals of Bengal

This is the middle of November and winter has just about begun to set in much of northern and eastern India. But Bengal seems to be on fire.

Last few days, newspapers and TV channels have been choked with celebrities and so called intellectuals, openly criticizing the government. They condemn everything that the government (as in a political existence) is trying to do at Nandigram.

The heart of the problem is the government trying to buy out land from farmers to establish factories. Farmers don’t want to sell. Land is the center of just about every problem/crime in this overpopulated nation of ours. Governments are empowered by the constitution to acquire land for such purposes as they deem necessary. This is nearly routine in India. This time things are however a little different. Armed rebels (Maoists) trained their guns and fought government forces at Nandigram, killing several men on duty. As government retaliated, the bloody affair led to (mis)reports of ‘government unleashing violence on its citizens’. Later, the political workers of the government wrested control of the villages. And this is what has infuriated our ‘intellectuals’.

Our ‘intellectuals’ are missing the woods for the trees. The chief minister argues the powerful point that the only way to eliminate poverty is by building factories. This can be done only by converting farmlands. These farms are roughly the size of a kitchen garden. The chief minister obviously has made an extremely important point, making sense in terms of economics. And we know that only economic well-being leads to stable societies, not distressed tillers of kitchen gardens. It is also therefore important for the government to win this battle. For if it loses, it won’t be able to acquire any more land anywhere, nipping in the bud efforts for poverty-alleviation / industrialization.
Our ‘intellectuals’ are wasting their energies over a misplaced cause. Or are they seizing the very first found opportunity for some television-activism, because now the state is ruled by a liberal chief minister? Such activism would have been unfeasible only some years earlier. Do they not realize that less than 5% of agricultural land is required for all those factories India needs? That if this opportunity is allowed to slip away, there wouldn’t be another in a long time?

Inadequate Governance and Vacillating Policies – Indian Phenomenon?

250 years ago, the English East India Company was having trouble with the Government of Bengal’s policies. The Company acquired its trading rights from the Monarch in Delhi. The provincial Government of Bengal under Siraj-Ud-Daula initially obliged. But levied additional provincial taxes later, in clear defiance of Delhi. And then doubled it. Delhi was too weak to enforce its seal. Sounds familiar?

Taxes and services were at the heart of the English-Bengal problems. Taxes were too high, arbitrary and yet the government was unable to fulfill its basic responsibilities – according to H E Busteed, the biographer of early English life in Calcutta. Bandits kept raiding the Company warehouse. Bengal government was unable to provide the security.

Likewise, Indian highways have been notorious – infested with thugs. The rulers were unable to ensure safe highways. Emperor Tughlaq’s own emissary (Ibn Batuta) & entourage to China, were looted and left penniless on the highway a short distance from the imperial capital of Daulatabad.

Jean Baptiste Tavernier traveled to India in 1665. After he sold his goods to the Governor at Dhaka, he preferred to get paid by Bill (traveler’s cheque) at Murshidabad. By the time, Tavernier reached Murshidabad, the Bill was revoked. It took the Dutch factory’s CEO at Cassimbazar, to articulate to the Governor the important point that unless policies on trade and finance were consistent and reliable, no one would come to India to do business, and then there would be no access to advanced arms and technology. The Governor made a payment.

And these accounts could go on. Sadly, there are virtually no accounts written by Indian businessmen of those times.

So many centuries later, we don’t seem much different. We handle licenses to mobile operators in an arbitrary manner. And even though unconvinced, the chief in Delhi is a silent spectator. We said yes, then no, and then yes to Enron. We employ a plan for Special Economic Zones (SEZ) to rival China. Then roll it back.

In the past, strong Governments have brought prosperity to India, and the weak ones have brought hardship to people.

My Book Shelf

My Bookshelf

http://www.shelfari.com/rahugho/shelf

Nehru Revisited

By late 1980s, there was a growing feeling of frustration in India. A number of countries that India considered backwater, were far ahead of her in terms of economic growth and social indicators. Initially Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore were shrugged off as ‘city countries’ which didn’t matter. But by 1985, South Korea and Malaysia were racing ahead. Then these were followed by Thailand and Indonesia. India still followed Nehru’s socialist legacy, while each of these successful examples had done the opposite.

It would be a difficult job to evaluate Nehru’s performance, probably until another 50 years. But that hasn’t stopped us from making relentless judgments on Nehru’s political output and administrative performance, launching attacks on his philosophies and personal life.
The British handed over to us a nation that the reeled under utter chaos of partition and a landmass that barely resembled today’s India. Millions of people with hundreds/thousands of years of roots on Indian soil were being hacked. Muslims were being evicted out of India and Hindus out of Bengal in the East and in the newly formed Pakistan. This was the world’s largest mast-migration and also the most violent. The women were raped, killed, retained (on the violator’s side of the border) as sex slaves and forced wives. And their men and children were slewed and roasted-alive in large numbers. People had lost everything—their families, belongings, pride, honour and belongingness. The survivors of this holocaust were fleeing in large numbers. Millions. Setting out on bullock-carts and on foot—shattered and traumatized, hungry and tired. And were attacked intermittently by bloodthirsty mobs from the opposite faith.

For centuries Delhi stood as the centre of Islamic culture in the East. The inhabitants of Delhi were the royal descendants, children of the biggest generals, artists and administrators. Its populace also held tightly the collective output of a long and powerful civilization. Its cuisine, its fragrance, its spoken language, its sweets, its medicine, its poetry and above all a population that was gentle and learned. The murderers erased it all. The opposite happened in the cities of Lahore and Nanaka Sahib. Long trails of refugees, running into tens of kilometers and visible from the skies, was the pain of partition. The British had done a half-hearted job at deploying the Armed Forces and police to contain this violence. Post partition, the government and the political leadership in Pakistan wasn’t doing any better job. Senior leaders of the Muslim League including Jinnah, paid solitary visits to these former centers of civilization, now being ravaged and erased by extreme violence. And of course, at the height of violence the leaders like Jinnah were themselves covered by heavily armed security. In stark contrast was our own Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. One evening, he rushed into an area torn by violence unarmed and unescorted. He stood atop a Morris and lectured the bloodthirsty mobs on the virtues of restraint. He managed to avert blood that day. This may seem heroism. This may even sound symbolic in a country where tens of such riots were erupting every hour. But this gives insight to the mind of a man emboldened by his ideas, not a gush of bravado. In comparison to his counterparts elsewhere, Jawaharlal Nehru enjoyed a huge reputation and confidence of the people. He also seemed to be a man of conviction. Today’s India is in many ways a product of those convictions.

Historian Ramchandra Guha helps dispel the popular myth that Jawaharlal Nehru inherited a nation that was cohesive, homogenous, organized and groomed to listen to its master. The British left behind a country in multiple pieces. 500 odd princely states were not part of India that was handed over to the government of Jawaharlal Nehru. Furthermore, the British encouraged the princely states to believe that now they were sovereign. The states were integrated with India one by one, sometimes by wit and sometimes by force. The hero of this is well-known and well recognised—Vallabhbhai Patel. And this is where comparisons with Nehru begin. The only state which Nehru took responsibility of integrating with India, was the state of Kashmir—a state that remains a controversy, and an issue that remains unresolved. Patel also handled two difficult states, namely Hyderabad and Junagadh. However, I think that this comparison suffers from oversimplification. Both of these states did not share a border with Pakistan, and both had the strength of Hindu majority population. Kashmir was a state, the majority of whose population was Muslim and it bordered Pakistan. The conflict was natural even if Patel handled the case. In fact, Patel is reported to have been of the view that Kashmir should have been merged with Pakistan, believing that the merit of the case was weak. If the comparison needs to be drawn, then probably it would make more sense to compare Patel’s exploits with Nehru’s integration of Goa with India.

While the British left us a railway network and an administrative setup, the fact also is that the people running it from the top were native British. All of them left India in just a few months following India’s independence. If Indians were complete novices, the nation would have ended in complete chaos. But, India functioned. We resolved violence that the British were not confident of handling themselves and had decided to "leave it" to the "native government of India". And this government was led by Jawaharlal Nehru.

Nehru also faced enormous political opposition, from within Congress and from outside, starting with Patel himself. And for the first time in his long career, he could not look at the Mahatma for support. He was his own contact with the people of India and was successful in drawing unprecedented support. He won elections after elections.

In his lifetime, Nehru produced enough evidence that his abilities were not limited only to the political sphere. As a nation builder, he also concerned himself with education and social development. The Indian Institutes of Technologies (IITs) were the creation of his passion — a brand name which even today remains India’s best known brand internationally. Also created was the whole new range of universities. India of today as an IT and Research power could not have emerged without these engines of higher education. This also powered India into just about every domain which is knowledge-intensive. These are also India’s only comparative advantage against China.

Nehru also promoted scientific thinking and temperament. He fought against superstition, something which plagued Hindus and Muslims in India equally. The Indian cinema (private owned) and television (state owned) carried his ideas.

In his election campaigns, Nehru toured the nation extensively and appealed to the women of India to give up the purdah and vote. He reformed Hindu law. At the time of the partition, women in India were almost wholly limited to domestic labour. More than half a century later, the participation of women has seen marked improvement across India.

Nehru’s biggest failures pertain to his economic philosophies. His significant leaning towards the socialist thinking, was probably in part also with a view to steal the agenda from the communists who were growing in influence among the peasantry in South and West Bengal. Even then, the model seemed to work fine. In 1960, the World Bank lauded India’s effort and progress and its report card stated that its performance was the best among the newly liberated countries and the developing countries.

Jawaharlal Nehru passed away in the middle of 1960s. The nation squabbled, and yet persisted with his ideologies on the surface. But by 1975 it was becoming more and more clear that India’s economic model was faltering. The bureaucracy and red-tapeism was turning out to be claustrophobic, strangling the enterprise and innovation. Export pessimism was a misplaced idea. And so was the idea of limiting the size of businesses. We had become inward looking as a nation. Contrary to Nehru’s vision of an India powered by its masses (he chose universal franchise – a utopian idea in those days), India was put through an autocratic rule during the emergency. Many intellectuals fled, including Shashi Tharoor.

By then, it was up to the successive leadership to change things that didn’t work. After all, there is no given success formula of nation building — it has to be attained by trial and error. But we failed in changing the direction and replacing those socialist ideas that didn’t work, with the more contemporary ones of export and globalization --- which was working elsewhere.

In some of these matters, we are perhaps naïve. We as people do not have the confidence of being able to change things, by judging them on their merit. We prefer status quo — the way of the Hindu. We would much prefer that Jawaharlal Nehru should have had the impossible ability of being able to see the future and therefore should have chosen the capitalist model in the 1950s. We have obviously not changed a bit since then. For everything that we want to set right, we demand a law to that effect. We believe that virtuous behavior can be legislated. Naïve. As a consequence, we have the world’s largest and most voluminous constitution. And also a constitution that is poorly implemented.

Probably we should stop finding faults with Jawaharlal Nehru (a gifted leader before independence and beyond) and look at ourselves. An indicator of our own abilities as a nation is perhaps the quality of politicians that we have chosen. You get governance that you deserve.

India: 9% growth forever?

Many seem to believe, especially many foreign observers, that India is here to match China in economic prowess. Probably we fall prey to herd mentality even as professionals.

There are vast differences Between the 2 countries. So far no democratic country (with universal voting) has succeeded in emulating the growth trajectory of China or South East India on a sustained basis. Would India rewrite this history?

Unlikely.

India’s savings rate is relatively lower, largely due to dissavings of the public sector. And we are not ready to run current account deficit to fund it. Bank credit as a fraction of the GDP is pittance when compared to South East Asia or China. You don’t expect IPOs to fund your investment.

At one level the exercise of comparison becomes futile. India is bad enough even at absolute levels. Majority of the world’s people living below $ 2 a day are India’s citizens. So are the largest numbers of illiterates. Remember, these are also the voters to the World’s Largest Democracy. Once home to world’s biggest forest lands, burgeoning mass of humans has decimated every available forest area and wild-life. A police force whose personnel are paid less than $ 2,000 a year for working 75 hours a week. Armed with outdated guns (some proportion of it being 19th century design and product) and often overseen by vested interests. Jessica Lal! A judiciary, which is sinking under the overload of pending trials. A judiciary, where those sitting on judgments are expected to examine probably 10 times the cases, compared to any successful judiciary in the world. They earn (inflation and growth adjusted) a fraction of what they earned in an earlier era (British) that was moderately successful. And so on, in every public sphere. Poor conditions ensure that the entire system’s output is mediocre. And there we are.

Infrastructure! We haven’t built roads. We have not really augmented rail tracks. We have not ventured into power generation. In any vibrant country, passenger vehicles criss cross the country in droves. Not in India. A cross country in one’s own car is an achievement. Freight carrying vehicles are harassed every 100 kilometers, in the name of taxes (whatever be the name and whosoever collects it). Trains are as bad as the British left it. Overcrowded and dirty. In the year 2007, major cities grapple with electricity cuts – every day. And the rural areas are not considered worthy of it anyway. Urban development seems marked for disaster --- transportation, lack of open spaces. Populism binds feet and preempts any industrial effort.

And yet India is growing. Fresh national survey (certainly more reliable than China’s) reveals that 9% growth in 5 years has not only brought about new upper middle class and rich, it has brought down levels of poverty. Tens of millions of people are enjoying higher income levels and ownership of things that they had not imagined a decade ago. A grand highway project that was energetically pursued by a former prime minister, has finally delivered the skeleton of a road infrastructure that any respectable large-thinking economy should have. Now personal vehicles are beginning their cross-country endeavors. An ongoing tax rationalization (VAT) is beginning to give some relief from harassment every 100 km. Much more relief needed. Some steps towards urban development, such as making it easy to get more land under development per project (rather than multiple tiny projects that harm infrastructure development and civic amenities) are underway.

Politicians have somewhat restrained themselves on fiscal front through FRBM. A bill on right to information is changing things for the 1st time in our history. It has the promise to involve the citizens in the act of governance. It promises to change how we govern and are governed.

But no one is talking of how a semblance of law and order could be brought in some northern parts of the country. Again, there is hope. Bihar is returning from its years in nadir. Finally, a new elected government, and roads are being built where none was built in 1000 years. There is an effort to control crime.

9% growth? It may well happen. We could become one of the 3 largest economies of world in a decade or two (economy would cross a trillion US dollars this year). But we could also simultaneously be the world’s most messy country. A large number of rich and much larger numbers of very poor will co-exist. The resulting dynamics is scary. Last year, 100 Indians catapulted to the world billionaires list. Every month, we add to the list. A huge mass of upper middle class is also emerging – with pay packets comparable to their counterparts elsewhere in the world. They will drive only luxury cars, live in luxury apartments and localities (also probably the costliest real estate in the world), visit (in 5 years to a decade’s time) some of the biggest & grandest shopping places in the world and employ lots of servants. It’s the have-nots that scare me. One has to only look at our cities and suburbs. Utter chaos is spilling on to the streets. Our pseudo social activists strain their vocal chords to halt new factories that will provide jobs to the people, who would otherwise end up as servants. These are the same people who don’t raise a voice when our forests are destroyed, and wild-life is annihilated. They don’t talk of population control either.

Then, no growth holds meaning.