Saturday, February 25, 2012

Indian agricultural policy in a nutshell - DTE-2

Section I Agriculture

Introduction to Section I

Indian agricultural policy in a nutshell


                     A large number of researchers and scholars who wish to study agriculture in India are intrigued by the extreme penury of the farmers and the low levels of productivity. It surprises them that the peasantry of a country so well endowed in water resources and sunlight should be so miserably placed.

                     It was only as late as in 1990 that the documentation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) clearly established that the government of India imposed a negative subsidy on Indian farmers. In the WTO parlance, the term ‘negative subsidy’ has a specific meaning. It refers to cases where the income received by the farmer by the sale of his proceeds is less than the income he would have received in a hypothetically free market where the government does not intervene in any manner.

                      On the other hand, ‘positive subsidy’ refers to cases where the farmers receive an income that is higher than what they would have received in a hypothetically free market, thanks to the intervention of the government.

                      The central and the most essential fact about Indian agriculture is that it suffers from either the caprices of nature or, when the nature is benign, by the tyranny of governmental interventions.

                  It is astonishing that most learned reports and books on Indian agriculture skillfully avoid referring to this central fact.

                      For years, all economists and agronomists have held that the poverty of the farmers and the low productivity of agriculture in India are interconnected and are both caused by the illiteracy, wasteful expenditure and large incidence of alcohol and other vices amongst the farmers. It is strange that this calumny persisted for long decades of the British Rule as also the first five decades after independence.

                      The farmers and the agriculture are the source of all wealth and multiplication thereof, at least in the physiocratic sense. In the peasant idiom, ‘if a farmer sows one seed the crop is hundred- or even a thousand-fold.’

                      How come the one industry where there is an actual physical multiplication suffers from the most serious deprivations?

                      Practically every regional language in India has a proverb that maintains that agriculture is the best of all vocations; the trade comes only second and the service is the least honorable of all. The proverb persists even though the reality has turned upside down, particularly after the independence. Now a job, particularly the government service is the most prestigious and agriculture almost passage to poverty, indebtedness and suicide.

                      Even though the learned economists and the erudite scholars refuse to recognize the fact of the negative subsidy in agriculture, there was abundant evidence of the social recognition that agriculture was the most arduous of all vocations.

                   Children of farmers, who had the good fortune of getting higher education, systematically preferred jobs and turned their backs on the parental lands. Daughters of non-agrarians have, for decades, clearly expressed their reluctance to be married into agricultural families. The life of a farmer housewife is a continuous misery comparable to life imprisonment. Now, even the farmers’ daughters indicate a clear preference for grooms in non-agricultural vocations, be they even menial.

                      The instruments of intervention that the government of India used were simple but lethal.

                      Until as late as 1960s, government imposed a compulsory levy on the food grains produced by the farmers. If a farmer had produced less quantity than was required to be given as ‘levy’ he was required to make up the difference by purchasing the food grains in the open market at higher prices and delivering them to the government at lower levy prices. If he failed to discharge his ‘levy’ obligations he risked being handcuffed and paraded in public places in great ignominy.

                      All transport, storage, trade, processing and export of agricultural produce were severely restricted if not totally banned. This was done by raising the boggy of consumers’ interest and the obligation on the part of the government to ensure food security.

                      The government did put up a show of ensuring remunerative prices by introducing a system of Minimum Support Prices (MSPs); but manipulating to make them work not as minimum prices the farmers should ever receive but as the signal of the maximum prices the traders need to pay for the agricultural produce.

                      The government did not need to depress the prices of each of the hundreds of agricultural commodities. It could depress the agricultural economy in general and keep the farmers permanently ‘needy’ by depressing artificially prices of just about a dozen commodities.

These anti-farmer policies were sought to be justified by various arguments:

1. The desirability of low-cost economy;

2. The need to promote industry by keeping prices of wage goods and raw material low;

3. Need for comprehensive consumer protection; etc

                      This is a brief summary of the essentials of the State policy on agriculture. And, all that I have written in last 30 years was essentially a commentary on the various methods used by the government to exploit the ‘Bharat’ to the benefit of the ‘India’.

24.11.2009                                                                                                    - Sharad Joshi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, February 24, 2012

DOWN TO EARTH - 1

DOWN TO EARTH - 1

Introduction

                   I became a farmer, towards the end of 1977, by purchasing a piece of land admeasuring about 23 acres in the village Ambethan in taluka Khed of Pune district of Maharashtra. This dry land farm was used essentially for experiments in marshalling of ground water and examining the economics of various crops that could be produced in Maharashtra. The fact remains that farming became my only source of livelihood.

                    The ban on the export of onions, which was my main crop, brought down the wholesale prices where farmers could not afford even to take them out of the ground. Thus began the farmers’ movement reclaiming the freedom of access to markets and to technology. I was probably the only activist with background in Economics, Statistics and various languages including English and French, apart from acquaintance with half a dozen Indian languages.

                    The agitation forced on me imprisonment over two dozen times and hundreds of criminal prosecutions. It also imposed on me the responsibility to explain the economics of agriculture in India.

                    I have had occasion to write for various periodicals including the Deccan Herald, Business India, Times of India and various sundry newspapers including The Indian Express, The Economic Times, and The Organizer as also in various e- periodicals.

                    I owe it to the large community that has an interest in Indian agriculture to make available to them writing in a suitable form.

                    I am beginning by bringing out a compilation of my selected writings for The Hindu Business Line where I have been writing the column ‘Down to Earth’ regularly without fail since April 1998. These articles have particular importance as they relate to the relatively more recent issues in agricultural development. To make the selection more contemporary I have included in this selection only articles published since 2002.

                    I tried to hand over the job of compiling and editing the articles to some professionals. It did not work. Some suggested that each article should be preceded by a brief note explaining its circumstances. That would have been too tedious and repetitive. Finally, I decided to go for the via media by attaching reflectively notes at the beginning of each chapter. I hope some minor points, not covered in these prefatory notes, will be clear from the respective articles themselves.

                    I hope the scholars and others interested in Indian Agriculture would find this representation of the non-official, if not the anti-official, position on agricultural issues interesting.

30th May 2009                                                                                                          - Sharad Joshi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, February 20, 2012

शेतकरी संघटक २१ फेब्रुवारी २०१२

अंक वाचण्यासाठी क्लिक करा 

वर्ष २८ ! अंक २२ ! २१ फेब्रुवारी २०१२

अंतरंग

जागरण
कापसाची शेती सापशिडीचा खेळ
श्रीकृष्ण उमरीकर.....3
-----------------------------------------------
आजकाल
निवडणुकीत ‘रस’ असणार्‍या मतदारांसाठी...
ज्ञानेश्वर शेलार.......5
-----------------------------------------------
शरदऋतू
केंद्रीय अंदाजपत्रक उद्योजक आणि
शेतकर्‍यांना मोकळे करणारे हवे

शरद जोशी.....7
-----------------------------------------------
मुद्दा
अंधेर नगरी चौपट राजा
गिरधर पाटील....10
-----------------------------------------------
पत्र
माधवराव खंडेराव मोरे, नाना तुम्हीसुद्धा...
रवि देवांग....12
-----------------------------------------------
कॉमन नॉन सेन्स
न्यायाचा सर्वोच्च लय

सुधाकर जाधव.....14
-----------------------------------------------
शेतकरी संघटना वृत्त.....16
-----------------------------------------------

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
अंक वाचण्यासाठी येथे किंवा मुखपृष्ठावर क्लिक करा.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sunday, February 19, 2012

वर्धा जिल्हा शेतकरी संघटना स्वभाप - जि.प. निकाल


    वर्धा जिल्हा        शेतकरी संघटना स्वतंत्र भारत पक्ष
 जि.प. निकाल

१७ फ़ेब्रुवारी २०१२

 उमेदवाराचे नाव
मिळालेली मते

परिणाम
  जि.पविरुळगजानन निकम     ३२३८विजयी
  जि.पसावलीचंद्रमणी भगत     २०७८विजयी
  जि.पगिरडविणा राऊत     ३४९१विजयी
  जि.पशेकापूररेखा हरणे     २०६९पराभूत
  जि.पसमुद्रपूरवर्षा व्यापारी     २४५०पराभूत
  पं.स.विरुळताराबाई ताडाम             २०३७विजयी
  पं.स.नांदगावसुजित बुरबुरे     ११९८विजयी
  पं.स.मोहगावदमडू मडावी     २०६५विजयी
  पं.स.गिरडचंदा कांबळे     १६०६पराभूत
  पं.स.शेकापूरवर्षा बिडकर     १४२८पराभूत
  पं.स.रसुलाबादविलास कटारणे     १०८९पराभूत
  पं.स.सिरुडगजानन कुडमेथे     १०६५पराभूत
  पं.स.सावलीशशिकला मंडाळी       ९७८पराभूत
  पं.स.कुटकीअरुण सावंकार       ७०८पराभूत
१०  पं.स.समुद्रपूरमाया भोले       ६५२पराभूत
११  पं.स.जामभुषणा महाकाळकर       ६३५पराभूत
१२  पं.स.सावंगी झाडेप्रविण महाजन        ५५६पराभूत







------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Saturday, February 18, 2012

जग बदलणारी पुस्तके

जग बदलणारी पुस्तके
.
.
.
.
>
.

.
.
पीडीएफ़ फ़ाईल डाऊनलोड करून वाचण्यासाठी
येथे
किंवा चित्रावर क्लिक करा.
.
.
.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ऑनलाईन वाचण्यासाठी पानावर क्लिक करा. 
पाने पलटण्यासाठी पानाच्या काठावर क्लिक करा. 
नेट स्लो असेल तर पाने दिसायला थोडा वेळ लागू शकतो. प्रतिक्षा करा. 
* * * * 



* * * * 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

असा आहे आमचा शेतकरी


असा आहे आमचा शेतकरी


             मुंबईतील 'चतुरंग प्रतिष्ठान' संस्थेचा या वर्षीचा सामाजिक क्षेत्रासाठी असलेला 'जीवनगौरव' पुरस्कार शेतकरी संघटनेचे प्रणेते श्री. शरद जोशी यांना प्रदान करण्यात आला. मुलुंड, मुंबई येथील कालिदास नाट्यगृहात १८ डिसेंबर २०१२ रोजी संपन्न झालेल्या भव्य संमेलनात हा पुरस्कार त्यांना प्रदान करण्यात आला. त्यावेळी उपस्थितांनी सुमारे पाच मिनिट उभे राहून प्रचंड टाळ्यांचा गगनभेदी कडकडाट करून मा. शरद जोशींना मानवंदना दिली. त्या क्षणापासून सतत एक विचार मनात घोळतोय, अनेक प्रश्न मनात निर्माण होतात ज्याची उत्तरे मिळत नाहीत. उत्तर मिळाल्यासारखे वाटत असतानाच पुन्हा एक नवीन प्रश्न निर्माण होतो.

            त्या सभागृहात उपस्थित असलेल्या सुमारे अडीच हजार उपस्थितांपैकी बहुतांश शहरी आणि मुंबईकरच होते. ज्यांचा शेती विषयाशी दूरान्वयानेही संबंध नव्हता. शेतीमालाला रास्त भाव मिळाले तर त्याचा त्यांना लाभ मिळण्याऐवजी फटकाच बसणार होता. दूध आंदोलनाने दुधाचे भाव वाढले तेव्हा त्यांच्याच खिशातून जास्तीची रक्कम खर्च झाली होती. ऊसाचे दर वाढून साखर महाग झाली तेव्हा त्यांच्याच घरगुती बजेटवर आघात झाला होता. अन्नधान्याचे दर वाढले तर त्याचा तडाखाही त्यांनाच बसणार होता आणि तरीही ही शहरी माणसे शरद जोशींच्या व्यक्तिमत्त्वासमोर नतमस्तक होऊन मानवंदना देण्यासाठी पाच मिनिटे उभे राहून टाळ्यांचा प्रचंड कडकडाट करीत होती. याचे कारणही स्पष्ट होते; की त्यांना शरद जोशी आणि त्यांचे कर्तृत्व कळले होते.

            मात्र याउलट स्थिती ग्रामीण महाराष्ट्रात पाहायला मिळते. शेतीमालाला रास्त भाव हा एककलमी कार्यक्रम घेऊन ज्यांच्या साठी शरद जोशींनी उभे आयुष्य खर्ची घातले, संसाराची राखरांगोळी होत असतानाही अविचल राहून ऋषितुल्य जीवन जगून नेटाने शेतकरी चळवळ पुढे नेली, अडगळीत पडलेला शेतीविषय केंद्रसरकारच्या अजेंड्यावर आणून ठेवला, त्या शरद जोशींविषयी ग्रामीण महाराष्ट्र उदासीनता का दाखवतो? असा प्रश्न पडणे स्वाभाविक आहे. ज्या शेतकरी संघटनेने अनेकदा आंदोलने करून शेतमालाला भाव मिळवून दिले, दोनदा हजारो कोटी रकमेची कर्जमुक्ती मिळवून दिली त्या संघटनेला राजकीय यश मिळवून देताना शेतकरी समाज कंजूषी का दाखवतो, असाही प्रश्न उपस्थित होऊन मनात निराशा येणे स्वाभाविक आहे. मात्र ग्रामीण महाराष्ट्राला शरद जोशी आणि त्यांचे कर्तृत्व कळले नाही, असे म्हणता येत नाही. इतिहासातला एकमेव शेतकरी नेता म्हणून शरद जोशी यांचे नाव जनमान्यता पावून प्रत्येक शेतकर्‍याच्या हृदयात कोरले गेले आहे. शेतकर्‍यांना संघटित करून "भीक नको हवे घामाचे दाम" असा मंत्र देऊन शेतकर्‍यांना सन्मानाने जगायला शिकविण्याचे त्यांचे योगदान वादातीत आहे. शेतकर्‍याचे मरणाचे कारण सरकारच्या शेतकरीविरोधी धोरणामध्ये दडले आहे, याविषयी सुद्धा आता कुणाचेच दुमत राहिले नाही, पण; जातिभेदांचे अडथळे दूर सारून शरद जोशींच्या पाठीशी एकसंघ उभे राहण्याची ऊर्मी शेतकरी समाजामध्ये का निर्माण होत नाही, हाच खरा कळीचा मुद्दा आहे. शेतकरी आंदोलनामुळे शेतमालाला बरे भाव मिळालेत, असे खाजगीत मान्य करणारा शेतकरी जाहीरपणे तसे मान्य करेलच याची खात्री देता येत नाही. शरद जोशींमुळेच कर्जमुक्ती मिळाली असे चार भिंतीच्या आड बोलणारा शेतकरी चावडीवर बसल्यानंतर गावच्या राजकीय धेंडासमोर बोलताना कृषीमंत्र्यांनी कर्जमुक्ती केली असावी, असे कसे काय म्हणू शकतो, हाही चिंतनाचाच विषय ठरतो.

            मात्र शेतकरी समाजाविषयी माझी तक्रार नाही; आणि तक्रार असण्याचे कारणही नाही. हजारोवर्षे आर्थिक गुलामगिरीचे, लाचारीचे व अपमानास्पद जीवन जगता-जगता स्वाभिमान व सन्मानाचे जीवन जगण्याची प्रेरणा देणारी जनुकेच या शेतकरी समाजाच्या रक्त-मांस-पेशीतून हद्दपार झालेली असणार हे उघड आहे. आंदोलनाने शेतमालाचे भाव वाढून शेतकर्‍याच्या घरात स्वतःच्या हक्काचे वीस-पंचेविस हजार रुपये जास्त आले तरी त्याला ते महत्त्वाचे वाटत नाही व संघटनेचा झेंडा हातात घ्यावा, असेही वाटत नाही, मात्र; एखाद्या पुढार्‍याने कोंबडी - बकरी घेण्यासाठी हजार दोन हजार रुपयाची अनुदान स्वरूपातील भीक मिळवून दिली तर त्या शेतकर्‍याला त्या पुढार्‍याचा झेंडा हातात घेऊन नाचावेसे वाटते एवढेच नव्हे तर आयुष्यभर त्या पुढार्‍याचे धोतर धूत बसावेसे वाटते, हा स्वाभिमान निर्माण करणारी जनुके निष्क्रिय किंवा नष्ट झाल्याचा पुरावाच मानावा लागेल. पन्नास रुपयाची तूर बियाणाची पिशवी अनुदानावर फुकटात मिळविण्यासाठी साठ-सत्तर रुपये बसचे तिकीट खर्च करून तालुक्याच्या ठिकाणी सोसायटीसमोर चार तास रांग लावणारी माणसे शेतकरी समाजात मुबलक आणि घाऊक प्रमाणात उपलब्ध आहेत. शेतमालाचा उत्पादन खर्च दर्शविणार्‍या हिशेबाशी शेतकर्‍याचे हाडवैर आहे. ताळेबंद आणि अंदाजपत्रक या दोन शब्दांची त्याला ऍलर्जी आहे. वर्षभराचा शेतीचा खर्च एका वहीत लिहून नफा-तोटा याचा आढावा घेणारा शेतकरी लाखात एखादा मिळाला तर आश्चर्य वाटावे, अशी स्थिती आहे.

            शेतकर्‍यांची संघटना असावी असे त्याला वाटते, पण त्यात आपलेही योगदान असावे, हे त्याला मान्य नाही. शिवाजी जन्माला यावा; पण तो शेजार्‍याच्या घरात, आपल्या घरात नको, हीच त्याची मनोधारणा कायम आहे. अन्यायाविरुद्ध शेतकरी पेटून उठत नाही, पूर्ण ताकतीनिशी संघटित शक्तीचे प्रदर्शन करीत नाही त्यामुळे कधीकधी संघटनेच्या कार्यकर्त्यामध्ये नैराश्य येते आणि संघटनेचे कार्य थांबवून द्यावे, अशी दबक्या आवाजात कार्यकर्त्यांमध्ये चर्चा सुरू होते. अशावेळी एक गोष्ट लक्षात घ्यायला हवी की, शेतकरी संघटना स्थापन झाली ती शरद जोशींना गरज होती म्हणून; शेतकर्‍यांना गरज होती म्हणून नव्हेच. शेतकर्‍यांना ना संघटनेची गरज होती ना शेतमालाच्या भावाची. लाखो शेतकरी एकत्र येऊन पहिल्यांदा संघटना स्थापन करण्यात आली आणि त्यांनी नंतर आपला नेता निवडला असे कधी घडले नाही. शरद जोशी परदेशात असताना भारतातल्या शेतकर्‍यांनी त्यांना पत्र लिहून भारतात येऊन संघटना स्थापन करण्याची विनंती केलेली नव्हती की "आदरणीय साहेब, भारतातील आम्हा शेतकर्‍यांची स्थिती अत्यंत दयनिय आहे, तेव्हा तुम्ही तातडीने भारतात या आणि आमच्यासाठी शेतकरी संघटना स्थापन करून या हलाखीच्या स्थितीतून आमची मुक्तता करा." 

            शेतकरी समाजात पावलोपावली व्हिलेज-बॅरिस्टर असूनही "शेतमालास उत्पादनखर्च भरून निघेल एवढेसुद्धा भाव मिळत नाही म्हणून शेतीत अठराविश्व दारिद्र्य आहे" एवढा साधा उलगडा देखील त्यांना झालेला नव्हता. शेतकर्‍याच्या घरात जन्माला येणे म्हणजे कर्जात जन्मणे, कर्जात जगणे आणि कर्जात मरणे, हे विधिलिखित असते, यावर शेतकर्‍याचा ठाम विश्वास होता. त्याला ’सुखाने व सन्मानाने’ जगण्याचे स्वप्नही अजून पडलेले नसावे. तसे नसते तर शेतकर्‍याने नक्कीच काही ना काही हालचाल करून उपाय शोधलेच असते. नाकातोंडाच्या वर पाणी आले तर तो आत्महत्या करून मरायला तयार आहे पण रणांगणात उतरून लढायला तयार नाही, यातच सारे काही आले.

            एवढ्या विपरित परिस्थितीत शरद जोशी यांनी शेतकरी संघटनेची बांधणी केली. शेतकर्‍यांना लढाऊ बाणा शिकवला. शेतीच्या अर्थशास्त्राची शास्त्रशुद्ध पायाभरणी केली. मोठमोठ्या अर्थशास्त्र्यांना झेपणार नाही असे अर्थशास्त्र शेतकर्‍यांच्या भाषेत शेतकर्‍यांना समजावून सांगितले. हे काम नक्कीच सोपे आणि सहजसाध्य नव्हते. महात्मा गांधींना स्वातंत्र्य लढ्याचे नेतृत्व करून स्वातंत्र्यचळवळ उभारणे सोपे गेले कारण देशाला स्वातंत्र्य मिळाले तर सत्तेची खुर्ची आपल्याच ताब्यात येईल याची खात्री बाळगणार्‍या व त्यासाठी गुढघ्याला बाशिंग बांधून तयार असणार्‍या पुढार्‍यांच्या फळीचा त्यांना भक्कम पाठिंबा लाभला होता. याउलट शरद जोशींचे तत्त्वज्ञान स्वीकारले तर शेतकर्‍याला आर्थिक स्वातंत्र्य मिळून राजकीय सत्ताकेंद्रेच प्रभावहीन होण्याची भिती या राजकीय मंडळींना कायम वाटत आली आहे. शेतकर्‍यांची लाचारी संपून जर तो स्वावलंबी झाला तर राजकारणाचा पायाच ढासळेल म्हणून कोणताही मजबूत राजकीय नेता किंवा पक्ष कधीच शरद जोशींच्या पाठीशी खंबीरपणे उभा राहिलेला नाही.

            डॉ.बाबासाहेब आंबेडकरांना दलित समाजात जागृती घडवून आणणे तुलनेने सोपे गेले कारण दलित समाजाचा सवर्णांकडून झालेला छळवाद याला दलीतसमाज आधीच कंटाळला होता आणि त्यातूनच त्या समाजात सन्मानाने जगण्याची प्रेरणा जागृत झालेली होती. शिवाय आंबेडकरांनी ज्या समाजासाठी कार्य केले तो समाज त्यांच्याच जातीचा होता. दलित समाज सर्वच जातीमध्ये विखुरलेला नव्हता. त्यामुळे डॉ.बाबासाहेब आंबेडकरांच्या चळवळीला वर्णसंघर्षाची धार प्राप्त झाली. मात्र शेतकरी चळवळीबाबत असे म्हणता येत नाही. शेतकरी समाज अनेक जाती-धर्मामध्ये विभागला असल्यामुळे या चळवळीला वर्गसंघर्ष किंवा वर्णसंघर्ष अशी जोडही मिळाली नाही. या अनुषंगाने विचार केला तर या जातिव्यवस्थेमुळे संघटनेला काही फायदा होण्याऐवजी नुकसानच अधिक झाले आहे. जातीच्या आधारावर संघटनेत फूट पाडण्याचे काही राजकीय पक्षांकडून वेळोवेळी जाणीवपूर्वक प्रयत्नही झालेले आहे. वैचारिक मतभेद झाल्याची सबब पुढे करून शरद जोशींना सोडून जाणारे तुरळक अपवाद वगळता बहुतेक सर्व थेट आपापल्या जातीच्या नेत्यांच्या कळपातच का जातात, हे सुद्धा एक न सुटणारे कोडेच ठरले आहे.

            या सर्व पार्श्वभूमीचा विचार केला तर शेतकरी समाजासाठी कार्य करणे हे तुलनेने अधिक कठीण काम असले तरी ऐतिहासिक आणि महानकार्य आहे, याची खूणगाठ मनाशी पक्की बांधून घेणे गरजेचे आहे. 

                                                                                                                  - गंगाधर मुटे
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 11, 2012

अंगारमळा - आत्मचरित्र

अंगारमळा - आत्मचरित्र

वाचण्यासाठी पानावर क्लिक करा.
पाने पलटण्यासाठी पानाच्या काठावर क्लिक करा.
नेट स्लो असेल तर पाने दिसायला थोडा वेळ लागू शकतो. प्रतिक्षा करा.

    


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

पीडीएफ़ फ़ाईल डाऊनलोड करून वाचण्यासाठी 
येथे किंवा चित्रावर क्लिक करा.

Friday, February 10, 2012

What went wrong with Indian Independence? chapter - 11

What went wrong with Indian Independence? chapter - 11

Flag of Liberation was looted before it unfurled

                   The United Kingdom paid a heavy price for the victory in IInd World War. Many of its cities and townships were devastated, thousands of young men killed and the economy lay in ruins. The post-war Great Britain lacked both – the will and the stamina for the massive military operation that would have been necessary for keeping its colonial possessions. The Japanese conquest of Asia had altered the Asian situation. The heroic fight by the Indian National Army (INA), the Naval Mutiny in Bombay and the emergence of leftist extremists groups all over the country had created a situation where continuation of the imperial rule was inconceivable. Britannia had ruled India for over a hundred years with the help of a native army, an indigenous police and locally recruited civil servants. It was no more possible to count on the loyalty of those institutions. In the general elections held in the Great Britain the party of Churchill, the militant leader who won the IInd World War for the allies, was defeated. The Labour Party came to power which soon decided to put an end to the Colonial Empire of the Great Britain.

                    The partition of India was announced; Those who had proclaimed that the country could be partitioned only over their dead bodies acquiesced in the partition with remarkable agility. What explains this change of heart and the sudden rush to gain power? (If the transfer of power is delayed any further an uprising of the suppressed masses, feared the established leadership, would sweep the country, the leaders of this new revolt may have little respect for Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence. This apprehension of the leadership that had grown under the Gandhi’s movement, had its own logic.)

                    Gandhi had mobilised unarmed illiterate and poor masses to confront the might of the British Empire by innovating the technique of Satyagraha and by spiritualising politics. His movement had an unprecedented response; millions came out for the struggle for freedom. The Congress leadership feared that the mighty forces released by the Mahatma would no more respect Gandhian discipline and that it would result in massive violence and bloodshed. Revolutions of this type would have demanded iron leadership and skills that were lacking in the then national leadership. If the advent of Independence is delayed the older generation of leaders will be replaced by a new leadership of a different metal coming out of Indian masses that would not shirk to shed blood to gain Independence. The heat of such a revolt would have burnt down the parochial feelings of caste and creed. The whole issue of Pakistan would have become irrelevant and the partition would have been avoided. But, that would hardly have suited the leaders of the Nehru-coterie. The idea that Independence was eminent albeit at the cost of partition and they would finally be able to have power after long years of speechifying and jail--going quite seductive. They had realised very clearly that this was their last chance of acceding to power. It was clear to them that India that had passed through the furnace of armed revolution would pay respectful homage to the Mahatma but would be far from kind to his second-line followers. Faced with this situation Gandhi passed the buck on to Nehru; his eminent disciples accepted Independence with partition. The Mountbaton Plan appeared to satisfy very largely the aspiration of the Freedom Movement under the flag of the Congress party. Their uppermost aspirations was that the British should leave without upsetting the hierarchical structure of the Indian society marked by the backwardness of the masses, domination of the upper castes and expropriation of the fruit of the labour of the helpless masses. Briefly, it was the ambition of the Indian elite to climb on to the throne of political power irrespective of what happened to the down-trodden. The leadership understandably felt that it had achieved its prime objective of acceding to power. It’s a pity that their mandate would not run in the provinces that would go to Pakistan. But, it was not overly concerned.

                    The Congress accepted the Mountbatton’s proposal not so much with the objective of bringing an end to the British rule as for the purpose of ensuring continued age-old domination of the elite castes. To sum up, in the idiom of Jotiba Fule, “Independence came before the emergence of Indian Nation as of unified people.”

                    The elite were happy that the old days of glory for them would come throughout the country minus the provinces going to Pakistan. The Indian elite were prepared to accept Pakistan rather than loosing the commanding heights they had occupied for, at least two, millennia.

The Reincarnation of the Caste Domination

                    That in the post-independence India the masses in the agrarian society were subjected to horrendous exploitation and that the urban industry was pampered beyond measure was, clearly, not an esoteric event or a sudden accident. This duality was the very basis of the Indian freedom movement. 

                    Thus it was that the British left; but the British army continued. The British administration remained the same; the police system remained unaltered. Not that there were no changes. The British had spread the most expansive railway network on the Indian Sub-continent; the Indian successors to British Rule applied breaks on that policy. The British had promoted India’s international trade, at independence it represented 4% of the world trade; the new Indian rulers started slashing down these links with the world ostensibly in the interest of self-sufficiency. Rulers in independent India, exactly like their Bolshevik counterparts, isolated the territory for their exclusive enjoyment. The Russians created an ‘iron curtain’, the Indians created a ‘bamboo curtain’ which was as effective as the iron one under the Indian conditions. Iron curtain effectively stopped all give and take of ideas as also goods and technology. That kind of strict ideological discipline was beyond the capacity of the Indian leadership. An open entry to goods and technology would have benefited the masses at large. Indians needed the machinery and the technology required for the industries of the urban elite. However, the contact with the world had to be selective. The bamboo curtain had lots of slits and holes, all suited to the convenience of urban cities and their industry. Indian rulers erected another barrier within the country, thus partitioning independent India a second time. This was not a territorial partition but it effectively created two entities – one which obtained the inheritance from the British of colonial domination and the other which continued to be under the harrow of colonial exploitation even after the departure of the British. In George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” the animals revolt against the “two legged master” and drive him out; but, shortly thereafter the pigs who take over the management, start behaving like the human master and go to the extent of learning to walk on two feet. The allegory fits the Indian condition even better than to those in the Soviet Union. The Indian ‘pigs’ started walking on two feet soon after independence. A polity and an economic system was meticulously designed to deny the Indian masses all contact with the outside markets, thought and science and technology.

The Language Imbroglio

                    During the period of the freedom movement all the leaders were agreed that Hindi should become the national language of independent India. In the first flush of enthusiasm at the dawn of independence people speaking different languages were favourably disposed to making Hindi the national language. They were determined to promote their regional languages but accepted the need of one common language for communication throughout the territory of the newly independent nation. This enthusiasm eroded pretty fast. The leadership lost the spirit and the ideals of the freedom movement. The states in the South started opposing Hindi. Israel which was created at about same time as independent India decided to accept a dead language like Hebrew as their national language in a spirit of national pride and soon the language of the Israel’s ancestors became an effective modern language for administration, communication and education. The harrowing experience of the post-partition period was such that if the ancient Sanskrit had been made the national language there would have hardly been any opposition. But, the government of new India had its own pervert outlook. It decided to have two national languages instead of one. Hindi had to be one of them. In order to obtain a national consensus it would have been understandable if one of the languages of South India were made, side by side with Hindi, the second national language. But, in the Constitution it was English, the language of the colonial masters, got enshrined as the second national language. Fifty years after independence, the dominance of English is increasing; the usage of Hindi is diminishing; English has become, for all practical purposes, the one and only national language.

                    It is not difficult to imagine to which class and community this language-policy suited best. The communities which had made for themselves comfortable niches in the colonial bureaucracy that continued to dominate even after the British left were, of course, delighted. It suited the urban elite who had got themselves English educated thought it only logical that English should continue. With the exception of these urban communities that formed barely 4 to 5% of the total population, the rest of the population found themselves cut off from the global currents. The rural Indians have never been comfortable with the English language. Even the educated villagers are scared when required to use English. Asian countries like Japan and China and countries of the developed world like France and Germany appear to be doing pretty well without English. There are only a select few that have relations with the external world learn English. This does not appear to have hampered their advancement or prosperity. 

                    The mother-tongue remains medium of thought throughout life. Languages acquired in later life are used only selectively in specific fields. India, nevertheless, accepted English as a national language mainly because the Indians have never had the ambition to be original thinkers. The wished that the alien literature, arts, culture, thought and science and technology should enter India in convenient doses and, that too, through their intermediary so that the lower castes remain dependent for these inputs on the communities “Superior” to them. Nehru would have never accepted that the administration should be in the people’s language. Many senior Indian thinkers, like Nani Palkhiwala, even today seriously believe that the formation of linguistic states was a grave error. They maintained that the linguistic states were primarily responsible for the dismal performance of India after independence. Socialistic State meant a hyperbolic proliferation of paper work. The educational institutions could barely keep pace with the demand for officials and leaders being able to transact business in acceptable Hindi/English. The list of subject in the state list were of minor importance and those in the top echelons of India were unlikely to be hurt if the state governments carried out the administration in regional languages. In fact, formation of linguistic states made it possible to raise whole new battalions of rural leaders who would support the cause of “India”. The fact that even forty years after the reorganisation of states, English continues to dominate fields of Science and Technology and business is an eloquent testimony of this fact.

Anglisism

                    The one single decision concerning the national language opened up vast avenues for the urban upper caste communities where they could operate unchecked. The army, the police, the administration continued the format set by the British. Jana Gana Mana, which was written originally to salute the British Emperor became the national anthem. ‘Vande Mataram’ that was associated with the most brilliant and historic chapters in the freedom movement was not acceptable to the new rulers.

                    On the Independence Day, on the Republic Day the flag--hoisting and ‘beating the retreat’ were fashioned more strictly according to the “Raj” pattern than in the U.K. itself. Slogans were raised of eradication of poverty and priority to health and education. In practice, educational institutes were developed to suit the convenience of the progeny of the black Britishs. The educational institutions are divided into three types.

                    A few hand-picked Universities and IITs maintain international standards for the children of the urban elite. The alumnies of these institutions generally migrate to richer countries or occupy elevated positions of power.

                    The “run-of-the-mill” schools and colleges available to the middle classes provide education of deplorable standards. Such institutions are generally handed over to the cronies of the rulers to make enormous money by. The educational attainments and proficiency of the product was irrelevant, since those who hold a printed degree paper got jobs in the socialist bureaucracy where efficiency and culture were of little importance.

                    The third and the last level of educational institutions consists of schools run by the Panchayat Raj institutions – the celebrated primary schools that lack even the black-boards. The rural masses continue to remain far removed from even the primary literacy.

                    More that 50% of the people are illiterate; most hamlets are unconnected by road; drinking water is luxury. Teachers and Doctors are seen only in “mandi” towns. The services of a mid-wife are not available even in extreme emergency. The village cobbler cures leather by the same century-old process; baskets are woven exactly in the same manner since generations. The iron-smith fixes the metal rings on the wooden wheels of bullock-carts and sharpen axes and sickles by his age-old methods. At the other end, more fortunate Indians receive education in the top-most institutions and migrate to richer countries to serve the affluent people there by using skills paid for by the poor in India. If an Indian tourist becomes unwell in U.S.A. or U.K. it is more than likely that he will be treated by a doctor educated in India. High level responsibility in industries, research institutions are entrusted to Non-Resident Indians. This is the fruit of fifty years of independence.

                    History repeats itself often; it so happens that the same character perform the same plays on the world stage with minor differences of costumes and make-up. Since thousands of years, India is witnessing the caste conflict in its various forms one after another. The caste character of the Indian society remained unaffected by the revolution lead by Gautama the Buddha. The feudal invasions barely touched its outer crust. After the advent of the British political independence received top priority setting aside all agenda for the uplift of the depressed and the down-trodden. After independence, slogans of socialism were raised to hypnotize masses into submission to the systems that tyrannised them. With the fall of socialism when some prospects of an era of dignified living for the toiling community appeared the upper caste elite have started talking of “Swadeshi” to defeat openness. The independence of India proved futile and the teeming masses continued to be fooled by ever new stratagems and tactics. The most unfortunate part of the story is that even the persons affected by the course of event fail to understand the diabolic plot in spite of witnessing it repeatedly act by act, centuries after centuries.

                                                                                         - Sharad Joshi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 9, 2012

What went wrong with Indian Independence? chapter - 10

What went wrong with Indian Independence? chapter - 10

DEFENCE FORCES REMAIN COLONIAL 

Inheritance of the White British 

            Mahatma Gandhi once said a curious thing, which has become a celebrated quotation. During an interview, an American journalist asked, “It is said that there are some major differences of opinion between you and your disciple, Jawaharlal Nehru. What precisely is the character of these differences?” Gandhiji replied, “I shall be very precise. I am looking forward to a day when the system of the British (Angreziat) will go; it does not matter if the British remain in India. On the contrary, Jawaharlal is keen that the British leave, no matter if their systems persist.” The quotation aptly summarises a very stark reality. 50 years after independence, with the advantage of hindsight, one could suggest only a small modification: In Jawahar’s view the British may leave but their systems must continue unchanged. From the day the Indian National Congress was established, the affluent urban people who had some smattering of English education had maintained one objective and one ambition. Having tested, in Maculae’s words, “the milk of the tigress of English language”, they craved to replace the British. 

            Their position could be summarised as follows. “The British Rule established law and order, installed Police, Post Office, started telegraph and made steam engines pull the trains. This period of peace and stability had come to India after long centuries of turmoil. Nothing should be done that would harm the working of the British system. We should try little by little to take over the reigns of this rule in our hands.” 

            The plan was well drawn. The first step was entry into the Indian Civil Service, then would come popular representation in institutions of local self-government, followed by legislative councils and lastly in Governor General’s Council. All concerned, however, did not have the patience to wait for so long. Some of them wanted a rapid, if not an immediate transfer of power. Their agenda was to make the British quit and to climb on to the seats of power vacated by them. Like the pigs in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ starting to walk on two legs, the radical stream of the freedom movement wished to perpetuate the British system, but under their own control. Speculating the mental process of historical personalities is a very hazardous exercise. It is difficult to be sure of the mental processes of persons even on the current scene; it is impossible to know for sure what went on in the minds of the Indian leaders 150 years back. Our judgement, therefore, will have to be based on the actual outcome of their actions. 

            The type of industrialisation that was tried after independence, the policy regarding Agriculture, Transport and other sectors, as we have seen, give no reason to believe that the Indian leaders were motivated by the desire to make India as a whole a happy and prosperous country. It is understandable if self-interest prevails in socio-economic matters. Nation’s security cannot be put at risk for reasons of self-interest. That the people who talk, day in and day out, of patriotism and nationalism should have allowed their self-interest to influence even the field of defence is difficult to understand or to forgive. The country remains militarily weak even today and vulnerable and India suffers from a sense of insecurity even about a country like Pakistan which is barely one-ninth of its size and has settled down to the idea that its north-eastern borders are indefensible against any invasion from China. 

The professional traditions of the British Army 

            The defence forces and the ‘Jawan’ are subjects of national pride all over. The convention is that no one should, by word or deed, adversely affect the morale, confidence and determination of the soldiers in the army. It is considered a vile act to say anything derogatory against the soldier who, in defence of the motherland, risks his life and willingly accepts martyrdom. 

            The period of 50 years since Independence is not an epoch replete in glory in many fields. However, the nation’s territorial integrity has been preserved by the jawans fighting on the borders and it has been made self-sufficient in food by kisans toiling in the fields. Both, jawans and kisans have to be backed by massive supporting systems and infrastructure. It is the responsibility of the political leadership to maintain those systems well oiled and efficient. Failure in this matter tantamounts to stabbing the soldiers in the back and betraying the farmers. It is hypocritical to pay homage, on the one hand, for their sacrifices and help, on the other hand, through act of commission or omission, cut off their supplies or weaken their position. It is an act of treachery. It is important, in the light of these observations, to examine how the rulers of Independent India provided for the defence of the country. 

            The British Army, Navy as also the Air Force have been fully professional outfits. Young men join the defence forces regarding it as a way of life and a career. They join the defence forces when young, undergo rigorous training and take care, even in normal times, of the security concerns. In the event of out-break of hostilities, the task is too large for the standing army. At times like this, all young men in a certain age group are required to join the armed forces. They are given a short intensive course of training and dispatched to the front. In times of war, every household and every family has at least one person fighting on the front and risking his life every moment. Invasion by an enemy becomes, consequently, a matter of serious concern for each and every citizen. 

British Army in India 

            At a point of time, the East India Company decided to secure the political power in the Indian continent and started making preparations to that end. The native armies of the Nawabs, Kings, Princes and Knights were outfits that lack discipline, training, mobility as also firepower. Even to continence such ramshackle forces the Company could not depend exclusively on divisions shipped from the Great Britain. The company raised divisions of native soldiers. The recruits consisted mainly of young men from backward communities which had demonstrated their loyalty to the British. These communities had a legitimate sense of grievance and a lot of bitterness against the society that had denied them even minimal human rights. Thus alienated, they had joined, in earlier epochs, the service of the Muslim conquerors also. The armies of these Muslim emperors had in their commands an array of upper caste dignitaries. Consequently, the forces were never fully unified. The Muslim army moved like a disorganised mob. When the British raised the army platoons the soldiers were taught rigorous discipline and given the latest armaments. The British forces so organised loyally fought and decimated the Muslim power as also the forces of the upper caste kings and princes. A large part of the credit for the establishment of the British Rule in India goes to the British Army manned largely by people of the backward communities. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar repeatedly emphasises this fact in his correspondence with the viceroy. Even after the establishment of the British Rule, the army remained a strictly professional outfit keeping its severe distance from the people at large. 

            This was understandable. The British knew very well what would be the consequences if the army was open to all native people. Savarkar had openly asked his followers to join the army, take the guns and change the direction of the guns the time come. The British Rulers were not entirely blind to this possibility. Every recruit to the army had his credentials, loyalty and pedigree minutely checked and tested. Young men, only from families that had a long tradition of army service were recruited. Thus the Company forces, as also the British forces, after revolt of 1857, maintained their strict professional character. They had no links with people outside cantonment areas. In fact, there was a sense of alienation and even, estrangement. The Indian platoons of the British army played a major role during the first as also during the Second World War. This was acknowledged, if with some condescension, by the British Rulers while the people at large denigrated them as hired agents of a foreign power. 

            The situation of the police department was, more or less, parallel. The Colonial government raised a Police Force that kept its distance from the people and ensured a tyrannical rule without any concern for people’s sentiments. Normally, in a district there would be a single white-skinned officer; all others were natives who had a unquestionable loyalty towards the British. 

The Soft Leadership 

            The freedom movement had its brief but brilliant episodes e.g. Revolt of 1857, acts of bravery of the heroes like Vasudeo Balavant Phadke, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad who had armed clashes with the British Rule. The main stream of the freedom movement, nevertheless, consisted of the non-violent civil disobedience programmes, constructive activities and, most importantly, speechifying. This mode of agitation required the leaders to go to jails every time an agitation was announced and whenever the police so required; and, when released from prison, attend felicitatary receptions by an adoring public, give increasingly jingoistic slogans full of bravado. This was all the training the leadership received for facing a situation of armed conflict. During the Second World War, the Japanese forces started advancing rapidly in South Asia; bombs fell on Calcutta. Gandhi, in 1942, had little option but to give a slogan of “Do or die.” The slogan represented lack of preparedness and abdication of responsibilities in an extremely grave situation. There was no planning, either of action or of abstention. That the Independence came in 1947 was due more to the compulsions of the British Rule, the pressure of the international opinion and new doubts raised about the loyalty of the armed forces after the Indian National Army and the Naval mutiny in Bombay than to the strength of the 1942 agitation. 

Indian National Army Condemned 

            In the early wake of India’s independence the leadership was faced with a very tricky question regarding the structure of the army. 

            Subhashchandra Bose escaped the British jail and reached Germany via Afghanistan. He established a government of Independent India (Azad Hind) in Berlin and then proceeded to Japan. The Japanese had triumphed over the British army on the Burmese front and taken as prisoners of war thousands of Indian ranks. 

            “A slave nation has no foreign policy. Enemy’s enemy is our friend. If the Japanese try to rule India after driving out the British we can start the next phase of freedom movement against them. Our priority is to throwing out the deep-rooted British Rule in India.” Subhashbabu’s exhortations moved thousands of Indian soldiers to join the Indian National Army founded by him. The Indian National Army (INA) had few arms, small transport fleet and hardly any system of supplies. It marched, nevertheless, towards the Indian border and came very close to entering India. The Japanese surrendered after the nuclear bombs devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Indian National Army had, naturally, to surrender. Subhashbabu reportedly died in a plane-accident and his soldiers were brought to India as prisoners of war. Bose had asked them to plant the tri-colour on the Red Fort in Delhi; now they were to face the trial in the precincts of the same historic monument. 

The government of India was faced with the problem - which is the real Indian army? 

            “The Indian National Army may have lost on the borders with Burma but the flag that they carried is flying over Delhi. This, in effect, means that the Indian National Army has been victorious. By this logic, the Indian National Army should have been recognised as the official army of the newly independent nation. The old British army which enforced the British imperial rule in India should be disbanded. The possibility of merging it after an appropriate scrutiny in the Indian National Army could be examined.” This was the nature of the proposal that came before the provisional government. 

            The British Rulers and the army officers took a very rigid position on the question. “The soldiers of the Indian National Army had joined enemy forces by breaking the oath of loyalty. There can be no question of their heading the army; they cannot even be readmitted in the army. Such re-admission would tantamount to honouring the traitors which would demoralise other soldiers and spread general dissatisfaction in the army and provoke a general revolt.” That was their line of proposal. 

            “The soldiers of the Indian National Army must face trial on charge of abandoning forces, they must be given appropriate punishments. Eventually, the Governor General, in his magnanimity, may suspend the sentence. These traitors have no rights to except a more generous treatment.” Thus ran the proposal. 

The Bogie of International Politics 

            The leaders of independent India acquiesced in the argument of the Army brass. Indian National Army was disbanded. The British army in India became the official army of the independent India. This decision has to be looked at from various angles. 

            All the leaders of the Congress Party did not universally like Subhashchandra Bose; many were jealous of his charismatic standing amongst Indian people. Mahatma Gandhi himself had used subterfuges to make Bose resign from the Presidentship of the Congress. Bose held Gandhi, nevertheless, in high respect and venerated him as the ‘Father of the Nation’. 

            The anti-Bose group lead by Nehru questioned the very merit of the INA. “The Fascist dictatorship was a crime against humanity; the alliance of the democratic nations against the Fascist axis was morally superior. It behoved a country of India’s Culture and History to give support to the allied nations. There can be no question of India siding with the Axis powers against the British. There would be little point in India gaining independence if the rest of the world is trounced by Nazi and Fascist dictators.” 

            This argument had quite some influence. The independence was preceded by communal riots all over the country. The partition brought in even more horrendous communal conflicts. Lakhs of people became destitute refugees. Nobody appeared to be capable of re-establishing peace and order. If the army is disbanded at such a juncture, it was feared, India will be overtaken by anarchy. It was, therefore, considered necessary to retain the British army as it stood. The first Independence Day saw curious sites. The tricolour of Independent India was hoisted at many places by civil servants who had whipped and tortured freedom fighters. When the army was saluting in Independence Day parades, the soldiers of the erstwhile Indian National Army were standing in crowds with tears in their eyes. The decision to adopt the British army was not taken too willingly. The British had imposed a condition that the government of independent India will do nothing to affect the position of the Indian Civil Service, army and British Legislation. The British structure remained in place, the British left India. That is about all. Jawaharlal triumphed the Mahatma was humiliated. 

The Anglo-phobia of the Army 

            Gandhi’s assassination suddenly brought the whole nation to its senses. The communal conflicts subsided little by little. A sort of peace was established. It should have been possible at the stage to take a second look at the constitution of the Indian armed forces. No such exercise appears to have been attempted. Army was sent to Telangana to quench the farmers’ uprising. It was used again against Naxalites, in Punjab, in Kashmir etc. Whenever a civil discontent erupted army was dispatched to deal with the situation. This has continued ever since. The British army adopted by India was used exactly as the British Rulers had done. 

            May be adoption of the British army had its own justification. May be acceptance of the British model of armed forces by independent India had its own reason. One would expect, however, that, at least in situations of grave emergency attempt would be made to mobilise the youth of the country in the service of national defence. Why was it not done? Indian army, even after independence, remained a society apart. They had little contact with the citizenry in the day-to-day activities. The Indian army needs to be felicitated for one thing. They could have easily taken over the civil government on many occasions. This would have not been a novelty. Coups d ètat were being staged all over the third world. Not that some of the Generals would not have liked the idea. Occasionally, there is a debate on the relative position of the Civil Administration on one hand and the armed forces on the other. Each time the conclusion was that the civil government is paramount. The Defence forces have accepted this situation. 

            What would be the ideal constitution of the Indian army? This is a continental country with large population, very little capital and poor technology. The logical conclusion would be that the defence forces should emphasise use of manpower. The soldiers of the Chinese People’s Army who carried sacks of barley flour for their sustenance drove back the Indian professional army on the northeast frontier in 1962. Mere babies of the Vietnamese Army countenanced the carpet-bombing by the American Air force. And the Vietnamese forces living like rodents in underground tunnels forced an abject surrender on the American Army equipped to the teeth with the most modern gadgetry. 

            It is futile to maintain that equipment makes the army. In a real prolonged armed conflict India can be defended only through defence plans based on effective use of manpower. 

            At independence, India was dependent for all arms and ammunitions, with minor exception of guns, cartridges and shells, on imports from abroad. Since then, there has been a significant improvement in defence production. Compared with many a country of the third world India is more self-sufficient in military hardware. We have tanks copied from one country, trucks from a second one, guns from yet another one and bombers and fighter planes from still another country. This kind of configuration is of questionable utility in a conflict with any major power. We cannot fight them with equipment which are poor copies of their own material. This is not idle scare mongering. China is a hostile neighbour. It is pointless to debate which side was guilty of aggression in 1962. In 1998, the defence minister of the BJP government stated that China is the main threat to India. If there is another breakout of hostilities with China or if China rushes to Pakistan’s assistance in any of the routine conflicts we persistently have with that country how long will our stocks of arms, ammunitions and other equipment last? 

Strategy of 21-day Defence

            Even leaving aside the case of conflicts with a super-power, let’s examine the situation of conflict with Pakistan. Pakistan has smaller territory, lesser population and a weaker economy. Our defence strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan, at least till Kargil, appears to have been on the following lines. In case of break-out of hostilities deploy planes, rockets and guns to protect cities near the border, like Delhi and Amritsar; keep the exchanges on the border going for three to four weeks in a manner that would make the stocks last as long as possible and hope that some third power or the United Nations will step in to bring about a cease-fire and cessation of hostilities. In the meanwhile, the citizens would display about the war the same kind of interest as they have for football or cricket match, finding out from news bulletins, every now and then, the scores. With the cease-fire both sides can claim that they have scored a victory and give out for the consumption of their public colourful pictures of how the enemy would have been totally annihilated if only the third party had not forced a cease-fire. Both the countries start afresh amassing arms and equipment for the next conflict. Like young urchins exhausting their stock of firecrackers, the top brass and the political leadership of both the adversary countries become free to purchase or produce fresh equipment and earn fresh commissions. 

            This certainly cannot be healthy for India’s defence system. After Independence, at least after some sort of normalcy was restored, if a system of one year’s draft for all the young men was introduced by now, at least 15 million young men would have been ready trained in the use of minor weapons in defence of the Mother-land. In that case, even China could not have easily taken condescending positions towards India and Pakistan would certainly be less offensive. The army in China is the peoples’ army and not a professional outfit. That essentially is the secret of its prowess. The important question that one asks oneself is why was the Indian army not made peoples’ army. There exist multi-fold vested interests in having a professional army. Professional soldiers are not very happy about admitting the civil population amongst them. Far more importantly, no government sceptical of its legitimacy likes to put arms in the hands of common people. Switzerland in Europe is tiny country reputed for neutrality and policies in favour of peace. In a country of this kind, every Swiss man, till the age of 65 years, is supposed to be prepared to present himself at the front within 24 hours of the call. He keeps even his automatic weapons at home. It is said that the favourite pastime of a Swiss housewife is to keep these arms well oiled and well polished. This is possible in Switzerland but not in Stalin’s Russia nor in India ruled by the Black Britishers. The psychological compulsion to keep a full-fledged professional army clearly signified that the government is unwilling to trust it’s own citizens. If the government’s perception is that it may be forced to send army to suppress civil unrest every now and then and that the economic system it presides over can be maintained only with the support of the armed forces it is unlikely to shift from the professional army to a people’s army. An army estranged from the citizens, a police department that lacks sympathy for the people, all these indicate that the enforcement machinery has no roots among the people. This does not happen in all the countries, that it has happened in India, is a clear indication that it has not become independent in the real; sense of the term. The white Britishers have left and have been replaced by the Black Britishers. The “Beating the Retreat” to the tune of Scottish bagpipe music in New Delhi is as close as it can be to the pigs’ walking on two legs in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’. 

            In the 50th year of India’s independence, the BJP Government made a quantum leap in the matter of India’s defence. Five nuclear devices were exploded at Pokharan to demonstrate to the world India’s nuclear capability. The Prime Minister maintained that this was a matter vital to India’s defence and the decisions in this respect can be taken only in the light of national interest. Pakistan responded by detonating six nuclear devices. It’s Prime Minister made a stalemate which echoed word for word the statement of his Indian counterpart. 

            Does the possession of nuclear bombs make a country’s defence system any stronger? The BJP Defence Minister pronounced that China was India’s principal adversary and that the main threat to India came from the Chinese, rather than Pakistan border. We have fought three wars with Pakistan. The issue of Kashmir is simmering for 50 years. In fact, Kargil happened within a few days of the Defence Minister’s pronouncement. It may be said that right since the partition, there has been an undeclared and continuous war between these two countries. China is far ahead of India in the matter of nuclear capacity. India would have difficulty to match China’s might even in a conventional war. A nuclear conflict with China is inconceivable. Briefly, the possession of nuclear weapons does not appear to help India against one of the two principal belligerent countries. 

            The whole Indian nation suffers from a peculiar complex as regards Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan is no match for India. It is a small country. Its population is much less, economy much poorer. Its military capacity would not come to even 30 per cent of that of India. It is true that it possesses jet fighters and rockets that have a slight edge over those with the Indian army. It would be foolish to imagine that Pakistan can ever overcome India militarily. The successive leaders of Pakistan have been very conscious of this fact. They have been taking political stances calculated to put India on the defensive. 

            Now that both, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, what difference does that make to the relative strength of their defence forces? It would appear that Pakistan has been the net gainer, at least in the short term. India has tarnished its image as a peace-loving democratic nation. It was this stature enjoyed by India in the international community that kept even Islamic countries from going beyond certain limits in supporting Pakistan even on issues like Kashmir. A thousand year traditions of Gautam Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi lay in ruins within two days of the five detonations at Pokharan. 

            Gone are the days when the state of advancement of a country was judged by its nuclear arsenal. Many a student of Physics in the U.S. and Europe possess all the technical know-how required for exploding an experimental nuclear device. If India wished to demonstrate its advancement in Science and Technology, it could have done it in a hundred and one ways that would not have tarnished its image as country of Gautam Buddha. 

            Most of the Islamic countries would like to have at least one atom bomb howsoever small. Most of them are itching to use it against Israel, whose army has thrashed the Arabs on several occasions. They are hoping that Pakistan’s know-how will become available to them. It is certainly not to the liking of the western powers that the nations ruled by despots should possess nuclear bombs. Even the rich Arab countries of the Middle East who have the nuclear ability do not dare use it for fear of American reprisals. Gadafi and Saddam are not the only rouge despots in the world. The world knew that India had the nuclear ability and the world knew that Pakistan was similarly placed. India’s explosion has proved nothing new. It has certainly strengthened the bonds between the Islamic nations which cannot be to the benefit of India. The western countries have for long watched with amused interest the frequent conflicts in the Indian sub-continent. The Pokharan has changed the scenario. The sub-continental context has suddenly become a potential threat for the globe as a whole. The western countries would try by all possible means to stop Pakistan from helping an Islamic nuclear bomb. If Pakistan complains of the need to have arms-parity with India, the U.S. will be prepared to supply it with abundant non-nuclear armament and equipment. Thus Pakistan’s position in a conventional war will actually have improved because of Pokharan. Pakistan would have been better advised not to respond to Pokharan. It would have been more advantageous for that country to go on holding out a threat of nuclear explosions but never really carrying them out. That would have certainly changed Pakistan’s image of a rogue nation and helped it acquire generous quantities of conventional armaments. Luckily for India, Pakistan succumbed to jingoistic posturing and had its own N-tests. 

            As in India so in Pakistan, jingoistic stances are more popular. And the Pakistani Prime Minister thought that if India had the bomb he has to show that Pakistan could do it too. By responding to Pokharan, Pakistan has axed the very branch on which it was perched. It cannot hope any more to get supplies of conventional armament to close the gap with India. Pakistan has thus literally slaughtered the hen that lay golden eggs. 

            It should be clear that in case of an actual breakout of war nuclear devices become irrelevant. There is no scenario where either Prime Minister would feel justified in using the ultimate weapon. If the extremists in Kashmir slaughter a thousand Hindus, will the Indian Prime Minister press the nuclear button? Will he do that if hoards of Pakistani invaders cross the Line of Control? Will he decide to use the nuclear bomb if the Pakistani forces helped by the local populace reach Shrinagar? Will he do that if Pakistani Air Force starts bombarding Amritsar, Ludhiana or even Ambala? Atom bomb is thoroughly useless not only as a deterrent, but also as an instrument of last resort. In a war between India and Pakistan there can be no winner. It is inconceivable that one of them will be able to trounce the other militarily and effectively occupy and hold the enemy’s territory. 

            If the BJP Government were sincerely concerned about India’s defence they would have undertaken a total reorganisation of the armed forces rather than going for sophisticated equipment, planes, missiles and nuclear devices. The India-Pakistan war-match cannot last beyond 2-3 weeks, since both of them will have exhausted all their arms and equipment by then. At that stage, the country which can adopt tactics like human waves with the help of large number of young men wielding small modern weapons that will have an advantage in holding out indefinitely. To provide the Indian jawans with a state-of-the-art automatic machine-gun in place of the present obsolete rifles would be far more effective than any number of nuclear devices. But, that kind of a measure has none of the political glamour that “Pokharan” has. During war, the jawans risk their lives while the civilians shout nationalistic slogans. It would be interesting to see if they would continue with the same jingoistic slogan-mongering hysteria if their own children were liable to be called to the front any moment. 

            In the post-Kargil and post-Pokharan era another opportunity has arisen to rethink on the structures and the constitution of the Indian Armed Forces. The moment is ripe for making the army open to people by introduction of compulsory military service so that young men pick up, during the training of about two years a fairly high level of industrial and combat skills. This long-pending reform will give India’s defence a big boost and also provide a rich source of skilled manpower for the Indian economy. It will also ensure a sense of discipline, patriotism and idealism that could help India recover from its present slide of apathy and avarice. 

COST OF THE NUCLEAR LUXURY 

            The Ministers of Finance, Commerce and other Ministries are going round the world soliciting foreign investments in India. Despite all tall talk, everyone knows that one really bad monsoon and the Indian economy will be in jeopardy. The year of the Pokharan, over thousand and five hundred farmers committed suicide by consuming poison. A Pokharan might do a lot of good for some time to the national ego. But, in the long run, that may prove to be expensive. If India faces a famine situation in times to come, it would have great difficulty in obtaining food-grains for the starvings. The switch over from a super-power pretension to the role of a mendicant is extremely painful and ridiculous. The world does not take kindly to it. A poor man subsisting by the leftovers of the affluent in the neighbourhood can ill-afford to suddenly turn into a Mafia Don for howsoever brief an interval. This kind of comedy can go on only for a certain time but not for too long. India can have no grievance if all the threatened sanctions are actually implemented. Iraq’s Saddam picked up the gauntlet, it must be said to his credit that he sustained and survived some of the fiercest punching by the American forces. It would be difficult to claim that India could take the beating that Iraq did. Of course, Iraq is not India and the Iraqi scenario is unlikely to be repeated here. The question is, did those who gave green signal to Pokharan, plan for such a contingency? It is equally doubtful if the authors of Pokharan had taken into consideration the consequences on the process of Globalisation under WTO. 

            Pokharan appears to have been a political bonanza for the ruling party. Not even the leaders of the opposition party have raised any significant protests. Everyone appears to be unanimous in praising the genius and the ability of India’s scientists. Was Pokharan good or bad? The answer appears to have been provided by the market. The share market collapsed and the Rupee fell by 70 paise per U S dollar. 

           Atal Behari Vajpayee is a highly respected leader and a popular Prime Minister. There could be no better judge of the possible response of the Indian people to a call to come to the defence of their Motherland. People have responded with great enthusiasm, every time there was a threat to the nation. Pokharan has given Indians a big ego trip. It is to be hoped that this will outlast possible economic sanctions, trade boycotts, shortages of petroleum, fertilisers and chemicals. If the Indian economy is weak and India is unable to import Diesel, there will hardly be any point in putting even a Hydrogen bomb in the arsenal of the Indian army.

                                                                                                                                -Sharad Joshi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------