Atanu Dey On India's Development

India Been Liberal Had

Yoda editor must have been of the column Ashok Desai by Telegraph in of Aug 15th.

Sayeth Desai:

If instead of the Hindu rate of growth of 3.5 per cent, India had achieved 6 per cent in 1950-80, we would have been twice as rich as we are today. But we have lost even more in terms of distribution of growth than of growth itself. We would have been even richer in terms of consumer goods. We would have worn better and cheaper clothes, and owned more white goods that take the daily toil out of people’s lives. Our villages would have received cheaper and more widely available electricity; with that electricity and their labour, they would have produced consumer goods at a fraction of the present cost. There would have been far more non-agricultural employment in rural areas. Instead of 5 per cent, we would have generated 25 per cent of world trade; all the nations of the Indian Ocean would have been closely tied to us by trade and investment. All we have to boast about today is our democracy; if we had been liberal for sixty years, we would have been a world model for lifestyle.

Quite a fine piece of analysis. Marred by the idiotic characterization of India’s dismal growth rate of 3.5 percent per year as the “Hindu rate of growth.” It was Nehru, Chacha Nehru and his band of clueless retards, that imposed socialistic state planning that doomed India to its retarded growth rate. Neither Nehru nor his bunch of moronic cabinet drew their inspiration from Hindu scriptures or Hindu ideology. The rate of growth of India during the Congress rule was not enforced by Hindu thought or Hindu philosophy. Hinduism is not an economic school of thought and it does not speak to state planning nor does it advocate socialism. The “Nehru rate of growth” has nothing to do with Hinduism or any other religion for that matter other than the religion of socialism.

Piece I have said my.

  • http://lifeandsomething.blogspot.com/ Gaurav

    Atanu,

    May you can “persuade” your liberal friends to drop this term. ;-)

    Anyways Azaadi Mubaarak Ho

  • Jayant N.

    Sad but true…
    Socialism failed because it couldn’t tell the economic truth; capitalism may fail because it couldn’t tell the ecological truth. – Lester Brown
    May the next 60 years be better than the last 60.

  • Arvind

    While the economics of it all is clear one cannot overlook the ways they fought and won freedom from British rule. Moreover established a good foundation for democracy. Just look at the neighbours Pakistan to Burma and Nepal to Sri Lanka. It had to be next generation to bring that change. But alas, Indira Gandhi could not do it AND that is my biggest crib. So even if we had started in the 70s and not 90s we would not blame Nehru as much today.

  • Notsure

    That rate was still better than the Christian Rate of growth that indian had. It was -1% under the british.
    What I Blame Nehru for is going through with a stupid constitution. Why is it a simple majority is required for amendments.
    And thats all it took to strip supreme court of its power, and took away right to property.
    There had to be an overwhelming outcry for change, not the whim of pm.

    Arvind alludes to not liberalizing in 70s.
    He is incorrect. Indian economy was more liberal. But since Mid 60s it became less and less liberal. Most of the laws that hurt honest Indian businessmen today came from that era.
    Ever wondered why a lot of Indians became successful entrepreneur after leaving india. Where as in India very few were able to do it.