The first four decades after Indian independence were a time of innocent certitude. Nehru and his successors provided a socialist rationale to the old, colonial policies of control. Self-sufficiency was emphasized over foreign trade. Import controls and the tariff policy stimulated the production of import-substitution goods by local manufacturers. Strict controls were imposed on exports.

Thanks to the constant drumbeat on the radio and the newspapers, everybody went along with the License-Babu-Raj, confident that India's day in the sun was round the corner. While there was development, overall we slipped further in the race between nations. India's share of world exports, 2.5 percent in 1947, had, by 1985, shrunk to 0.5 percent. Using the blurred lens of socialist ideology, the thinking class attributed this decline solely to the machinations of the capitalist nations.

If we were at a certain low point, how had we arrived there? Actually, the slide in these decades was a continuation of what had happened in the two centuries prior to it.

British prosperity in the 18th century was achieved over the backs of Indians. Our exports into Britain were forbidden and India became a captive market for British exports. In 1700, the British Parliament passed the first law banning the import of calico [Indian cotton cloth]. The preamble to the law justified it as follows:

If the East India trade continues, it will drain the nation's coffers and necessitate the melting down of coins. The resulting reduction of labour will inevitably cause grave damage to the country and force most of its manufacturing industries to seek labour overseas.

When the law did not prove very effective, two decades later, in 1720, a stricter calico prohibition was enacted. This new law expressly prohibited the wearing of clothing made of calico and its use in interior decoration and household effects. These laws facilitated the growth of the British textile industry, and once the industrial revolution made the British products cheap, all Britain had to do was to ensure that there was no capital investment within India to have the asymmetry work permanently to its advantage.

Britain maintained its vice-like grip over the Indian economy even during the Second World War. India, during that period, had a trade surplus, but its trade with other nations was restricted by the control over its “sterling balance.”

Britain was merely serving its own interests. British colonialism had a racist foundation, as exemplified by the attitudes of people like Macaulay and Churchill. But, many Englishmen who came to work in India were fine people, striving their best to do whatever they could in their jobs. However, such good work could not undo the ruin to which British policies were subjecting India.

The lack of investment in Indian infrastructure is evident from the fact that, in 1920, the total number of people in the Indian scientific services was 213, out of which 195 were British. Only 18 Indians scientists, paid less than half their British counterparts, were supposed to serve the needs of a country of 400 million people!

As the English stole jobs and capital from India, entire communities slipped into a spiral of poverty and famines became recurrent. According to Mike Davis in Late Victorian Holocausts, an estimated 12 to 30 million people perished in famines in late 19th century. Four more millions died in the Bengal Famine of 1943-45. According to historians, the death toll from these famines was exacerbated by the incompetence of the British administration. Here is an oft-quoted table from the Journal of European Economic History on the share of world manufacturing output for different regions over the last 250 years:

Country 1750 1800 1860 1900 1928 1953 1963 1980  

West 18.2 23.3 53.7 77.4 84.2 74.6 65.4 57.8

China 32.8 33.3 19.7 6.2 3.4 2.3 3.5 5.0

Japan 3.8 3.5 2.6 2.4 3.3 2.9 5.1 9.1

India/Pakistan 24.5 19.7 8.6 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.3

USSR 5.0 5.6 7.0 8.8 5.3 16.0 0.9 1.1

Brazil/Mexico -- -- 0.8 0.7 0.8 .9 1.2 2.2

Others 15.7 14.6 7.6 2.8 1.1 1.6 1.1 2.5

  On the British watch, India's share of manufacturing fell from 24.5 percent to about 2 percent. It is remarkable that Indians are not aware that their catastrophic impoverishment took place during the colonial rule, proof that folk memory rarely exceeds three generations.

Even after the substantial growth of the past decade, India's share of world trade has barely reached 0.8 percent (from the 0.5 percent fifteen years ago) and the hope is that it will cross one percent in 2007. This current growth has occurred as a result of major reforms in the system. But more fundamental changes will be required before Indian development becomes rapid. These changes would necessitate a re-examination of the ways with which we have become comfortable.

The underlying ideas driving a system are more important than the motivations of individual bureaucrats. Many officers implementing License-Babu-Raj wished the best for the country, but the system was the problem. It lacked mechanisms to facilitate innovative solutions.

More than the details of the Constitution (the Indian Constitution is several hundred pages long and not many have read it entirely), there must be underlying ideals that bring people together. The ideas of justice, liberty and equality are rightfully in the Constitution, but they have been forgotten in the system of laws. For example, consider the following randomly selected issues:

Electoral Process

Why should certain constituencies be permanently reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes? If a certain percentage of the constituencies must be reserved, then these should be rotated to ensure that all the voters are treated uniformly. Even the idea of reserved constituency should be rethought. Something different, such as delimiting constituencies in a manner that facilitates proportionate representation to diverse social segments of the population, will work better.

Over Two Kids, No Civic Post Law

Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court in India upheld a Haryana legislation disqualifying a gram panchayat member from becoming a sarpanch if he or she had more than two living children. To me, this looks stupid. We elect people to an office for certain abilities. Why should the most-qualified person be barred from a job just because of the number of children he or she has?

Administration of Temples

Why should state governments in India be in the business of running temples, either directly through temple ministries, or indirectly through government-controlled trusts? Let's give them temples to administer after they have shown they can manage other things such as public hygiene, roads, health and industry efficiently! It is also against the directive principle of separation of religion and executive.

The gap between the stated basis of the Constitution and the functioning of the state has risen because writers and scholars are failing in their task to analyze society and suggest solutions. The debate in the media is so shrill that wise people have stepped out of the ring. A few years ago, the government suggested a review of the Constitution but the opposition shot it down. Perhaps, the lack of reform is due to the Indian habit to include all parties, including the most extreme, for a consensus. This leads to inaction.

If politicians cannot come to an agreement about change, scholars in the universities should keep the discussion going. This hasn't happened because there aren't many of them who occupy middle ground, a result of bitterness with the system and lack of information.

The education sector needs much more resources and fundamental reforms. We need more universities and more research. There is an enormous gap between the projected requirement and the availability. Here are some figures:

Country Population Number of Universities

Israel 10 million 10

Korea 45 million 120

UK 50 million 170

USA 280 million 1700

India 1100 million 280

To use the same population basis as in the United States, India needs over 6,000 universities. Since the government does not have the resources for such growth (or even a fraction of it), it should give up its monopoly over university education and permit private universities without fear of nationalization. Competition with such new centres will force established universities to improve their management.

In recent years, Indian engineering and business schools have earned a well-deserved reputation for excellence. Now is the time to enlarge the focus to humanistic subjects and the arts. With increasing globalization, it is not enough to study business and technology but also see how they interface with the society.