THE INDIAN SCENE

PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA

The outstanding event in the external sphere of the Indian Scene during the period under review was the recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan. It took more than two years after the emergence of Bangladesh for Pakistan to adjust herself to the reality of the situation and extend her recognition to the new State. It is better late than never. It may now be said that with this recognition a new chapter begins in the history of the sub-continent and of India.

The recognition was welcomed by the Government of India and by the people of the country. It has eliminated one of the factors that contributed to political instability, and tension in the area during the last two years and it is naturally a matter of great relief to all well-wishers of peace and prosperity. This is the most that can be said of it. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether it will really bring peace to the area or promote tensions.

There are from the point of view of India many causes for misgiving. She has now to face a situation far more complicated than what existed during the last two years. Statesmanship and diplomatic: skill of a high order will be required if she is to deal successfully with the new situation.

The recognition of Bangladesh was brought through the intervention of third parties contrary to the expectations of the Government of India. All along the Government has been saying that problems of the sub-continent should be settled only through bilateral negotiations or by tripartite negotiations among the three sovereign states in the sub-continent. But Bhutto so managed the situation that it was through the intervention of the states assembled at the Islamic Summit Conference at Lahore in the last week of February that recognition became an accomplished fact. India had no other alternative than to accept a situation to which she was most opposed.

To add to this sense of disappointment there was the factor that the intervention was that of States whose bond or unity was religion and not common interests of a secular character. In the past India had to pay a high cost in consequence of the prominent role which religion played in the politics of the sub-continent. These memories are still fresh in the minds of the people or the country. Naturally the Government and the people became sorely disappointed that it was the factor of religion that brought about reconciliation between Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are unlimited possibllities for mischief if religion becomes the bond of unity between Pakistan and Bangladesh and if Islamic States from outside give their support and helping hand in strengthening such a bond.

The immediate outcome of recognition was the participation or Bangladesh Prime Minister in the Islamic Conference at Lahore. He was for sometime anxious to participate in it as it would bring him into touch with Arab countries controlling the oil supplies. He informed the Indian External Affairs Minister, who visited Decca a few days previous to recognition, that in case Bhutto extended recognition to Bangladesh he would attend the conference; but it appears that he did not take India completely into confidence in the negotiations which went on between him and Bhutto through third parties for a number of months preceding the actual recognition. This was contrary to the spirit of the Simla and Delhi agreement. As a result of these negotiations it was settled that Pakistan should first recognise Bangladesh on the eve of the Summit Conference and that Mujibur Rehman should drop the idea of trying Pakistan prisoners on charges of war crimes. Mujibur conveyed to Bhutto through the negotiating third parties that he was not serious about the trial of war prisoners. The recognition then became an accomplished fact. The delegation of the Islamic Conference which visited Decca on February 21 merely performed a formal function of conveying to the Bangladesh Prime Minister the fact of recognition by Bhutto. All these developments took India by surprise not because she was against recognition or against the dropping of the trials of prisoners of war. In fact she was in favour all along of the dropping of trials. The surprise was all due to the way in which negotiations were carried on, the religious tone that was given to recognition and the secrecy in which the whole affair was shrouded.

No purpose is served by going into the history of these negotiations and the way in which India was by-passed., What is more relevant for our purposes here is how recognition will affect Indo-Bangladesh relations in future. Here there are certain factors which have to be taken into consideration. One is that the initiative in shaping the evolving situation in the sub-continent has now passed into the hands of Bhutto. India can only react to his moves. It is quite certain that he will stress the bond of Islamic brotherhood in his dealings with Bangladesh. This is the purpose of his forthcoming visit to Dacca. Many politicians–perhaps Mujibur also–will respond to his appeal as he is a member of the committee appointed by the Islamic Conference to devise ways and means for easing the oil crisis and as he is also one of the managers of the proposed Islamic Bank.

We should note here that the Arab world is now a power to reckon with in spite of its internal disunities. The control over the oil resources of Western Asia and Northern Africa has increased its bargaining position and it is sure to exercise a large amount of influence over the politics of South Asia. Bhutto has become highly influential with the Arab world, and this will naturally be taken into consideration by Bangladesh.

China is sure to follow Pakistan and recognise Bangladesh. Both countries will soon have diplomatic missions in Dacca. We are aware of their anti-Indian attitudes and they will use all their strength and skill to encourage such an attitude in Bangladesh. China is now trying to extend her influence into the third world. A Chinese embassy in Dacca will be utilised for this purpose. It will also try to embarrass India in collaboration with Pakistan.

All this may not be a source of worry to India if there is no anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh. As a matter of fact there is such a sentiment and it has recently been on the increase as has been stated by Kuldip Nayyar, an eminent journalist. It is partly an old legacy. We should not forget that what is now Bangladesh was in the pre-partition period a centre of the activity of the Muslim League with its theory of two nations and its anti-Hindu attitude. Large numbers of Hindus had to leave this area after the country was partitioned and come to India as refugees. Even today the refugees who were forced to come to India as a result of Pakistani atrocities in the war of December 1971 and who went back to their homes after Bangladesh was liberated have not got back all their property. There is consequently–we may regret it–a section which is anti-Indian and which does not believe in secular policies. Moulana Bbashani has been using all the influence he has to strengthen this section. The danger is that both Pakistan and China may use their diplomacy to encourage these elements.

Writing on why the common man in Dacca felt happy on Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh the correspondent of The Statesman observed: “They (the people) attach greater importance to the fact that Bangladesh has now become a full member of the Islamic World and through it had been able to establish its Islamic identity.....”

It is true that Mujibur Rehman is a staunch supporter of secularism and so also are many members of his party. He is also a strong believer in Indo-Bangladesh friendship. But even he will be powerless if large sections of the peolpe are attracted to theocratic policies.

From all this the conclusion follows that India cannot take the friendship of Bangladesh for granted. She must use all her diplomatic skill to prevent the anti-Indian attitude of certain sections of people from assuming unmanageable proportions with the encouragement of Pakistan and China. She must revise her foreign policy in the light of the new situation, perhaps come closer to both Soviet Russia and U.S.A., establish bilateral relations with less fanatical Muslim States like the United Arab Republic and Iran, and more than anything else build her own military, naval and economic strength. A well-knit and integrated nation of 600 millions can defy the hostility of neighbouring peoples. This is not to say that Bangladesh will become hostile towards India or that Pakistan will remain hostile for all time even though Bhutto boasted at one time that he would fight India for a thousand years. But our Government should pay attention to the realities of the situation and not be swayed by merely ideological considerations. It must develop a greater capacity for initiative, instead of merely reacting to events.

The growth of Islamic sentiment in Bangladesh is bound to have its repurcussions on the Muslims in India. Let us hope that these repercussions will not result in the widening of the gulf between them and Hindus or discourage them from joining the main stream of national life and working in co-operation with all the secular forces in the country.

II

Internally it is the economic situation that is a source of the greatest concern. It is not only because it brings a large amount of suffering to almost all classes of people except the most affluent who constitute a small percentage of the population but also because it leads to violence and creates conditions of near anarchy and chaos of which Gujarat has set the worst example in the period under review.

One source of consolation in this otherwise dismal atmosphere is that the Government and the party in power are now at one with the opposition parties and the politically conscious public in their views about the nature and causes of the economic crisis with which the country is at present faced. This is clear from the pre-budget economic survey which was made in Parliament by the Finance Minister, Sri Chavan.

He accepted the truth of the view that the rise in prices was the outcome of deficit-financing, the pumping into the economy of large quantities of currency notes. This in its turn was due to Government’s inability to control in an effective manner the non-developmental expenditure. Much of this expenditure arises out of the pressure which the organised sections of the public like Government employees and workers in public sector concerns like Railways, Life Insurance Corporation and Banks are able to exercise on Government with the unorganised sections looking on helplessly. The Finance Minister also agreed that there has practically been no growth in industry and that in agriculture there is only a slow rate of growth due to inadequate supply of fertilizers, improved seed, pesticides and water for purposes of irrigation. It is the stagnation in economy that is responsible for the increase in the numbers of the unemployed. What is most discouraging, however, in the economic survey is that there is no near hope of any improvement in the situation and that 1974-’75 will be a much more difficult year than 1973-’74. It appears as if a sense of despair and utter helplessness has overtaken the Government, as if it lost all control over the situation and that it will allow things to drift. A Government which lacks self-confidence and confesses its inability to bring about improvement loses all legitimacy in spite of the gains it happens to secure, in a general election as it has now secured in U. P. and Orissa. Such gains cease to convey any meaning to the people.

It is quite possible to argue that the economic crisis with which the country is faced is due to factors which are beyond the control of the Government. There is first the high rate at which population has been growing and the failure of the people to respond effectively to measures relating to family planning sponsored by Government. Secondly much has been done all these years to increase the production of food grains; clothing and other essentials of life. In fact there has actually been a rise in productivity but it is not commensurate with the needs arising out of the rapid growth of population. It will take time to bring about a closer approximation between the needs of the people and the resources that can be made available to satisfy the needs. Even in a country like Soviet Russia, which is taken by several sections of our people as a model to follow, there is an inadequate supply of consumers’ goods. The Western countries took more than a century to industrialise themselves. We are passing through a period of transition and no amount of governmental effort can achieve the kind and degree of economic growth which will satisfy the minimum needs of the people.

There is some truth in this line of argument but it is only of a limited character. It is not proposed here to go into the defects of the planning system as it evolved in the country in the post-independence period and the mistakes committed in determining the order of priorities. What the public are now asking is why the Government has not taken effective steps to bring about a more equitable distribution of what is being produced. The prices of articles of food, for example, have risen because of the failure of the Government’s procurement policy. Even in a year like 1973-’74 when the food production has gone up to 110 million, prices have risen to unprecedented heights. There has been a good deal of hoarding and the administrative machinery totally failed to bring all available stocks to the market. Rationing has been introduced but very few ration shops have the stocks needed to satisfy the requirements of card-holders. It is this situation that has led to food riots in several parts of the country. The affluent sections and those who wield power find no difficulty in setting all that they want and it is the middle and lower classes that suffer. Much of this suffering can be mitigated if the distribution system introduced by Government becomes more effective. The Government has not been able to do this in a satisfactory manner. It will be satisfactory if there is more honest effort on the part of the political leadership and its administrative machinery to work out an efficient distributive system and if those who have to work it out are less corrupt than what they are today.

A second malaise which has overtaken the economy and for which the Government is responsible is the irrational wage and income structure that we now have. There are public concerns–for example, the shipping corporation–where the minimum emoluments of a sweeper or a peon come to Rs. 600 a month, according to the calculation of an expert, while a junior doctor with all his educational qualifications has to be satisfied with only Rs. 200 a month. The average emoluments of a bank employee have gone up from a little less than Rs. 3,000 a year in 1956 to Rs. 5,700 in 1966 and further to Rs. 8,500 in 1973. All this stands in contrast to the emoluments of teachers in educational institutions managed or aided by Government. Employees in both Central and State Government services get their salaries and dearness allowances periodically raised not because they have higher educational qualifications or do more responsible work but because any strike by them will bring about the collapse of administration, They are in a better bargaining position than employees in quasi-public or private concerns. Instances like these may be multiplied. There is no rational basis for the kind of disparities in respect of incomes enjoyed by people and no effort has been made by the Government to create such a basis. This creates frustration and this is at the root of most of the strikes, bandhs and other pressure tacticts which adversely effect productivity and impede economic growth. It is a sort of ad hocism that is resorted to by the Government. It yields blindly to any organisation which brings pressure on it for more emoluments whether their demand is reasonable or not and cares little for those who are not able to bring such pressure. All this is opposed to the principle of socialism by which the party in power swears. This frequent increase in the emoluments of organised sections is also one of the causes of inflation which brings so much suffering to those who are not organized–the large majority of the people.

This is not all. Almost all departments of Government and the public sector concerns are over-staffed. The Sixth Finance Commission estimated that forty per cent of the staff in the former is surplus. The same is true of the staff employed in the Indian Air Lines, the Life Insurance Corporation, the nationalised banks and several other organisations in the public sector. Many of the foreign companies carrying on business in the country indulge in over-staffing. Let it also be noted that Government Departments and several other oganisations are not productive in the ordinary sense of the term. They do not directly contribute to economic growth. The work done by the staff in them is mostly of a clerical character. The result of over-staffing in an under-developed country like ours is that it adds considerably to inflation and serves as a powerful factor in bringing about a rise in prices. In spite of all this over-staffing work goes on at a slow pace and this leads to the phenomenon of overtime work and the additional emoluments which accompany it. This has been going on for years. Government has connived at it and to some extent it has done this with a view to provide employment to the unemployed, although every one recognizes that this is more like relief through charity than employment as is ordinarily understood. Any attempt to reduce the staff resisted as has been seen recently in the strike of the employees of Indian Air Lines. No one, however, cares to see that this kind of over-staffing leads to increase in costs of production and adds to the burdens of the people. Government has lost the courage to deal effectively with the problem and pursued a policy of drift.

It is clear from this analysis that although economic crisis through which the country is passing is the outcome of imbalance between the growth of population and the growth of productivity, it is also the result of the failure of the Government to pursue effective policies in respect of the distribution of what is produced, its failure to rationalise the structure of wages and other incomes and the laxity which it has shown in the matter of staffing. Govern- ment has failed to discharge its responsibilities in these crucial matters and the people are put to considerable avoidable suffering in consequence.

III

When suffering becomes unbearable, and when people feel that it is not all due to calamities caused by nature but that it is the outcome of the follies and shortcomings of those in authority, they have every excuse to resort to violence as has happened in Gujarat and in several other parts of the country.

In Gujarat violence was spearheaded by students and they obtained the co-operation of their teachers. The immediate cause of the violent outburst was the rise in the cost of food supplied in hostels. They attributed this to the corruption of the Ministry of the day and were determined to see that it was removed from office. Violence to which they resorted took the usual form, with which the country has become familiar these days. Cars, buses, and all sorts of public and private transport were set on fire; shops were looted and nearly 3 crores worth of property was destroyed. Hoarders and black-marketeers were manhandled and forced to disgorge their stocks. There was general lawlessness and to deal with it the corrupt Ministry used all the police forces at its disposal. The police resorted to firing in the usual course and many innocent people either lost their lives or got injured. The military also were called in to restore order. Curfew was imposed in most of the towns. But the agitation continued.

There was nothing surprising in the unsocial elements taking advantage of the lawlessness and carrying on systematic plundering and looting. There was equally nothing surprising in the opposition political parties joining the fray and contributing in their own way to the seriousness of the situation. What was most surprising was the participation of several factions in the Congress which was the ruling party, in the violent agitation. They felt nothing wrong in joining hands with the opposition in the attempt to get rid of the Chief Minister then in office. It was then that the Centre realised that the removal of the Chief Minister and the dismissal of his Ministry and the proclamation of Presidents rule was inevitable if agitation should come to an end and law and order restored.

President’s rule was proclaimed but law and order have not been restored because the agitators demand not the suspension of the Assembly during the President’s rule but its dissolution. Even this does not satisfy all agitators. Many among them want a judicial enquiry into the charges of corruption against the ex-Chief Minister and some of his colleagues. It is not known whether even this will satisfy them and whether they will not put forward fresh demands.

The truth of the matter is that corruption of the worst type and factionalism of all varieties–based on caste, community and love of power–have overtaken the ranks of the Congress Party that people find that there is nothing wrong in trying to get rid of it by any and every means. The norms of parliamentary democracy do not appeal to them when it only means the struggle among politicians for power and wealth. Politicians have no right to speak of the need for preserving decorum and decency in public life when they have no scruples in the matter of gherraoing the President of India, the Governor of a State or the Council and Assembly hall. The country is heading towards chaos and anarchy and the ruling party is unable to discover a way out of it.

IV

In this situation there is no need for feeling happy over the victory secured by the Congress in the elections in U. P. and Orissa or feeling unhappy that in Pondicherry, Manipur and Nagaland it is the parties in opposition that won the elections. Till it is proved that the Congress in U. P. and Orissa is free from the corruption and factionalism which characterised it in Gujarat and that it is able to provide a stable, honest and efficient administration to the states in which through luck it has been able to come to power, one has to reserve one’s judgment in a matter like this. The public have become disillusioned with the performances of the party. Mere promises have lost their power and, efficacy.

Academicians and political scientists will no doubt study the causes that have led to the victory of the Congress party in U. P. and Orissa and the various factors which exercised their influence on the behaviour of the voters. It is a part of their professional work. What they have to explain, however, is why in spite of the corruption, factionalism and other evils which have overtaken it, the Congress continues to be voted to power. Is it possible to explain this in rational terms? Let us hope that political scientists will throw some light on this.

Back