Politics

The Nehru-Gandhi legacy of shame

This is the ninth installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

Last week I caught an episode of the charming show, Koffee with Karan, in which Karan Johar was chatting with Shobha De and Vijay Mallya. I enjoy the rapid-fire round on this show, because it reveals much about the celebrity-culture of our times, as well as about our celebrities. One question Johar asked De and Mallya on the show stood out: “Rahul or Priyanka?”

Now, Johar wasn’t asking De and Mallya which of the two Gandhis was better looking or suchlike. He wanted to know who they preferred as a politician. There was an implicit assumption that one of them is certain to be a future prime minister. This has nothing to do with with their political skills or leanings, of which little is known. It is all about their last name, which is the most powerful brand in the biggest market of India: our democracy.

Rahul understandably wants to exploit this, and build the brand: a few days ago, while campaigning in UP, he spoke of how the Babri Masjid would never have been demolished had the Gandhi family been active in politics. It’s natural for Rahul to invoke the Gandhi brand, given the resonance it carries in this country. But it’s also somewhat ironic. Despite their iconic status among our economically illiterate masses, the Nehru-Gandhi family has been nothing but disastrous for our country.

Jawaharlal Nehru was one of our foremost freedom fighters, but the freedom he fought for was restricted to the political domain. Once the British had been ousted, he replaced them with a new oppressor: the Indian government. He distrusted free trade, and once famously told JRD Tata that profit was “a dirty word.” He shackled private enterprise with a license-and-regulation raj and tried to build a command economy where the state was all-powerful. His fatal conceit, to borrow Friedrich Hayek’s phrase, ensured that India limped into the modern age while other Asian countries, once behind us, leaped ahead.

One can be charitable and say that the well-intentioned Nehru was a creature of his times. It is hard to give his daughter similar benefit of the doubt. Indira Gandhi not only took Nehru’s policies forward at a time when it should have been obvious that they weren’t working, she systematically began to strip away the little economic freedom that existed in the country. In colleges it would make good material for a course titled “How To Savage An Economy 101.”

She nationalised all our big banks. She stopped foreign exchange from kick-starting the country’s development, and thus creating employment and productive growth, with the Foreign Exchange Regulation act in 1973. The Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1976 distorted land markets, thus raising land prices and aggravating the problem of slums in cities.  The Industrial Disputes act (1976 and 1982) distorted labour markets and acted as a disincentive to industrial expansion. And so on and on.

With our natural strengths, India should have dominated labour-intensive manufacture and become a manufacturing superpower decades before we started doing well in services, but Jawarharlal and Indira never let that happen. The consequences of Indira’s policies look dry in economic terms, but by perpetuating poverty and shackling growth, they unquestionably had an impact on millions of lives.

Indira attacked more than economic freedom, of course. The emergency was a period of shame for our country, and yet, quite what you’d expect from a leader who took ruling India as a birthright. Her son, Sanjay, had authoritarian instincts even more pernicious than hers, but we were thankfully spared his rule. Rajiv Gandhi, when he took over, seemed a good man, if an inexperienced one. But can naïvete – he was in his 40s during his prime ministership – serve as a suffiicient excuse for, say, Shah Bano, or the foolish intervention in Sri Lanka?

Sonia Gandhi, while she had the character to refuse the prime ministership, also has all the wrong ideas. Her doubts about foreign investment and her support for well-intentioned but short-sighted programs such as the Rural Employment Guarantee Act demonstrate that the lessons of the past haven’t been learnt, and that the communists in the UPA aren’t the only forces holding back India’s progress.

It would be unfair to hold this shameful legacy against Rahul Gandhi. Even if political leadership comes to him as inheritance, he may turn out to be his own man, and recompense for the sins of his forefathers. But here’s what worries me: the best we can do, in our elite drawing rooms watching elite TV shows reading elite papers like Mint, is hope that he turns out well. Of his coming to power, there is no doubt at all. Isn’t that scary?

The mullahs and Musharraf

Gautam brings my attention, via email, to a story about how radical clerics from Islamabad’s Red Mosque are demanding that a minister be sacked from Pakistan’s government because she dared to hug a foreign man. As it happens a Pakistani journalist who is a friend of mine sent me an email a couple of days ago about this very mosque, in reaction to my piece on General Musharraf, “General Musharraf’s Incentives”. With his permission, and keeping him anonymous for obvious reasons, I reproduce some of it below:

To add further fuel to the theory that it is entirely in [Musharraf’s] interests to prolong this war against terror, this war against extremism, I wonder if you have been following the curious case of the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa in Islamabad?

In short, it is a madrassa illegally occupying government land in the heart of the capital, staffed by thousands of burqa-clad women and run by some hardcore maulvis who are, for all intents and purposes, running a state within a state.

They have Taliban-type aims – they have set up a department of vice and virtue – and recently kidnapped some women claiming they were running a brothel. And then some policemen too. Now they’ve set up a parallel court on their premises, they go around threatening dvd rental stores and take down license plate numbers of female drivers in the capital to harass them for being non-shariah compliant later. All this in the capital. With the President on one side and the PM on the other and all the intelligence agencies nearby.

Basically, the government is not doing anything about it, ostensibly because “they are women and we don’t want to hurt them and we’d rather negotiate with them”. (Balls – that didn’t stop them beating up Asma Jehangir last year when she tried to run a marathon.) The belief is though that it acts as a scary reminder of what the country may lurch towards if the President wasn’t around fighting the forces of extremism and playing saviour.

My friend also pointed me to an article by Masood Hasan in which Hasan describes Pakistan as “a banana republic which has run out of bananas.” Heh.

And also, via email from Quizman, here’s a letter by Hameed Haroon, the publisher of Dawn, about how Musharraf is clamping down on the press. In any case, Musharraf’s shameful behaviour during the Mukhtaran Mai affair should be enough indication of how deeply illiberal he is. He’s masterfully built an image of himself in the West as a moderate moderniser, but that facade is slowly and surely falling apart.

Update (April 12): Nitin Pai writes in to add some nuance:

The mullahs of Lal Masjid are not the same chaps that were long held as bogeys. Leaders of the MMA have not only have had little influence over this business, but they have actually criticised the Lal Masjid brigade for, well, politicising religion. The Lal Masjid brigade has everything to do with Khalid Khawaja-Hamid Gul & Co which are parts of the establishment. Since your post is about Mush using the Mullahs, I thought it is worth pointing this out.

(Personally, I’m not entirely convinced that Mush controls Gul & Co entirely. They may be trying to replace one Mush with another.)

Legalize poppy production in Afghanistan

The Independent informs us:

Tony Blair is considering calls to legalise poppy production in the Taliban’s backyard. The plan could cut medical shortages of opiates worldwide, curb smuggling – and hit the insurgents.

This is immensely smart. George Bush is opposed to it, but it’s probably about time that Blair said to him, “I’m a poodle, here’s my paw, it has a middle finger.”

And do check out General Musharraf’s quote in the piece about buying all the poppy so that it can be destroyed—what a clown.

(Link via email from Gautam John. And on the subject of legalizing drugs, here’s my essay, “Don’t punish victimless crimes.”

Pakistanis don’t want violence

Mohsin Hamid writes in the New York Times:

Pakistan is both more complicated and less dangerous than America has been led to believe. General Musharraf has portrayed himself as America’s last line of defense in an angry and dangerous land. In reality, the vast majority of Pakistanis want nothing to do with violence. When thousands of cricket fans from our archenemy, India, wandered about Pakistan unprotected for days in 2004, not one was abducted or killed. At my own wedding two years ago, a dozen Americans came, disregarding State Department warnings. They, too, spent their time in Pakistan without incident.

Yes, there are militants in Pakistan. But they are a small minority in a country with a population of 165 million.

I spent a couple of months in Pakistan last year, and can attest to what Hamid says: most Pakistanis, like people from anywhere else, just want a peaceful, prosperous life, and have no desire to court conflict. The problem is that it is in Musharraf’s interests to portray Pakistan as a dangerous place, so that he can get the support of the West. So far, he has succeeded, but that may change. The next few months promise to be interesting.

Also read: my recent essay, “General Musharraf’s Incentives.”

Bal Thackeray’s culture

PTI reports:

Stating that “winning and losing is a part of the game”, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray on Monday asked the disappointed cricket fans not to attack the players’ houses.

Conceding that India’s defeat to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the World Cup was a cause of anguish, Thackeray said in a statement that attacking players’ houses and taking out their mock funeral processions was not the way to express anger.

“This is not our culture…It does not behove us. Nowhere in the world do such things happen,” Thackeray said.

Immense amusement bestows itself liberally. We all know what kind of culture Mr Thackeray believes in. Do we not?

General Musharraf’s incentives

This is the sixth installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

In our new age of terror, General Pervez Musharraf is both Gabbar Singh and Veeru. In the global War on Terror that began after 9/11, he is a frontline ally of the US, the man given the task of finishing off the Taliban and catching Osama bin Laden. He is also the pivotal figure in the local conflict between India and Pakistan, talking peace to the international community but taking a harder line with his domestic constituency.

Much of the talk about Musharraf that I see around me arises either from wishful thinking or from false preconceptions. Without passing any judgement on his performance, it would help to consider the incentives that drive him. If Musharraf is to look after his interests, as any rational person would, how should he behave?

Firstly, consider the War on Terror. I spent a couple of months last year travelling through Pakistan, and it was common among journalists and economists to speak glowingly of Pakistan’s “9/11 economy”. Akbar Zaidi, Pakistan’s best-known economist, told me that through its history the biggest spurts of growth to Pakistan’s economy have been fueled by foreign aid. (It has been happenstance that dictators have been in charge when this has happened, giving rise to the myth that Pakistan economy does well under military dictatorship.) Pakistan received these boosts of aid under Ayub Khan in the 1960s (when the US adopted Pakistan as a strategic hub in South Asia), Zia-ul-Haq in the late 1970s (when Russia invaded Afghanistan), and General Musharraf found himself a beneficiary after 9/11.

“We refer to Al Qaeda as Al Faeda,” a journalist told me in Islamabad. Pakistan’s economy under Musharraf was in bad shape before 9/11, but as Pakistan quickly became key to America’s plans of countering Al Qaeda, the foreign aid poured in. Farrukh Saleem, an economist, wrote an article last year estimating the benefit to Pakistan to be worth US$40 billion, which included the bilateral debt forgiven by the US, the US$100 million a month that the US department of defence reportedly transfers into Pakistan’s treasury, and the other bilateral debts that the US persuaded the Paris Club lender nations to “reschedule … on easy terms.”

Pakistan’s economy also benefited in other ways. Land prices shot up as non-resident Pakistanis, unsure about investing abroad, parked their money in real estate back home. An entire support economy sprung up around foreigners who came to Pakistan because of its strategic importance and newsworthiness, and I was told that the dollar would have been far stronger against the Pakistani rupee (one dollar equalling 90 rupees instead of 60) had 9/11 not taken place.

All this means that it is overwhelmingly in Musharraf’s interests to be an ally in the War on Terror. But is it in his interests to win it, to finish the Taliban and catch Al Qaeda’s top leadership, and secure his region from these influences? Would that not kill the goose that laid the golden eggs?

His incentives in the conflict against India aren’t tailored towards peace either. Musharraf’s power comes from heading the army, which is the most powerful institution in Pakistan by far. Armies thrive on conflict, and Pakistan’s military has used the conflict against India to acquire a dominant position in Pakistani society. If the two countries were to suddenly resolve all their problems, it would be harder for the military to justify its massive budgets, its untramelled power, its command over civil society. Dictators often use the threat of war to suppress civil liberties and concentrate power in their hands.

Musharraf has to talk peace, of course, to keep up the façade of respectability in the international community. And to be fair, the incentives described above are just part of the story. It isn’t easy to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban from the NWFP, which is virtually autonomous, and elements within the Pakistani establishment might well be supporting them, as they probably do the terrorists who routinely cross over into India. But the important thing to note here is this: Musharraf isn’t the villain of the piece, per se, because any rational person in his position would behave exactly as he is. That is why the speculation over the US replacing him, if at all they’re capable of such a thing, is silly. The problem isn’t the man, it’s his incentives.

There are no easy solutions to this: increased trade could help Pakistan’s economy reduce its dependence on foreign aid, and create disincentives to conflict. People-to-people contact could counter the demonization of India in the eyes of Pakistan’s people. Both the US and India could try a different balance of sticks and carrots to make this come about, maybe by taking a harder line, which has its attendant set of risks. Dick Cheney’s visit to Pakistan last month, ostensibly to tell Musharraf to get his act together, was an indication that the US has changed its approach. Will it work? I don’t know. But it’s better than wishful thinking.

This piece is an elaboration on a series of blog posts that I’ve written on the subject in the last few months. Here are some of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Cricket and politics

Superb headline in DNA:

Imran Khan attacks President Musharraf for World Cup debacle.

Right. And the economy and terrorism are Inzamam-ul-Haq’s fault, and democracy in Pakistan has been subverted by Younis Khan. Savage delight flows from the barrel of a gun.

By the way, won’t the Pakistan-Zimbabwe encounter tomorrow be the only one in the tournament between two countries led by dictators?

Where your taxes go: 18

Advertising campaigns for governments.

It’s quite possible that Amitabh Bachchan did the ads for UP for free, but my contention is that the government shouldn’t be wasting our tax money in producing and broadcasting advertisements for itself.

(Update: Reader Hemant brings my attention, via his comment below, to an Amitabh quote in the article in which he says that the ads were funded by the SP. If so, then this is clearly a wrong example, as your taxes may not be involved in this particular case. My bad, sorry! My larger point about government advertising, though, remains.)

A government should not need to advertise, its efficiency or inefficiency will be evident to all the people it governs. By all means, let a political party advertise its achievements with its own money, but to spend taxpayers’ money on it is a waste.

(Where your taxes go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Also see: 1, 2, 3.

My essays on taxes and government: Your maid funds Unani, A beast called government.)

Take a stand, John McCain

The New York Times, reporting on John McCain’s campaign, writes:

On Thursday, even as he promised a stream of the candid comments that distinguished him in 2000 — “Anything, anything you want to talk about,” he said — he steered clear of offering opinions on two of the biggest issues on the political landscape this week. He declined to say whether he agreed with the assertion by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality is immoral, or whether he thought Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be ousted for his handling of the firing of federal prosecutors.

I can understand the reluctance of a candidate to express strong opinions on anything: part of the secret to winning an election surely is pissing off less people than your opponents. But equally, you want to see your politicians stand for something.

By refusing to answer the question on homosexuality, McCain is signalling to non-homophobic voters that either he believes that “homosexuality is immoral,” or he is pandering to the religious right in order to win the Republican nomination. He is also signalling to the religious right that while he pretends to share their ‘values,’ he won’t come out and openly say it.

Either way, he could be losing himself voters, and that’s a damn good thing. He showed his disregard for free speech with the odious McCain-Feingold act, and hedging his bets on an issue like this is, in my book, disgraceful.