| European Country | |
| 1. Germany | |
| 2. France | |
| 3. Britain | |
| 4. Italy | |
| 5. Spain |
| Indian State | |
| 1. Uttar Pradesh | |
| 2. Maharashtra | |
| 3. Bihar | |
| 4. West Bengal | |
| 5. Andhra Pradesh | |
| 6. Madhya Pradesh | |
| 7. Rajasthan | |
| 8. Tamil Nadu | |
| 9. Karnataka | |
| 10. Gujarat |
24 May 2010
India's States and Europe's Countries: Population
Here is a comparison of the population of India's states and European countries:
14 May 2010
Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture - 2
Karl Marx in the preface to his "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (1859):
1. In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.
2. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
3. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.
4. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
5. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
6. In broad outline, the tribal, ancient, feudal and capitalist modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society.
See "Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture" (T-E-P-C)
1. In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.
2. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
3. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.
4. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
5. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
6. In broad outline, the tribal, ancient, feudal and capitalist modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society.
See "Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture" (T-E-P-C)
08 May 2010
Degree of Urbanisation: India and Other Countries
Q: How much of India is urban?
A: 30%
Here are some countries and their degree of urbanisation:
Data from CIA's The World Factbook. The definition of "urban" is different for different countries.
A: 30%
Here are some countries and their degree of urbanisation:
| Country | |
| India | |
| China | |
| Indonesia | |
| Japan | |
| Russia | |
| Germany | |
| France | |
| America | |
| Brazil | |
| Britain |
Data from CIA's The World Factbook. The definition of "urban" is different for different countries.
08 April 2010
India's Tribals/Adivasis and Naxalite/Maoist Violence - 2
Arundhati Roy on India's tribals/adivasis and the Naxalite/Maoist violence*:
This legacy of rebellion has left behind a furious people who have been isolated and marginalised by the Indian government. The Indian Constitution, the moral underpinning of Indian democracy, was adopted by Parliament in 1950. It was a tragic day for tribal people. The Constitution ratified colonial policy and made the State custodian of tribal homelands. Overnight, it turned the entire tribal population into squatters on their own land. It denied them their traditional rights to forest produce, it criminalised a whole way of life. In exchange for the right to vote, it snatched away their right to livelihood and dignity.
Over the past five years or so, the governments of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal have signed hundreds of MoUs with corporate houses, worth several billion dollars, all of them secret, for steel plants, sponge-iron factories, power plants, aluminium refineries, dams and mines. In order for the MoUs to translate into real money, tribal people must be moved. Therefore, this war.
This CSR masks the outrageous economics that underpins the mining sector in India. For example, according to the recent Lokayukta report for Karnataka, for every tonne of iron ore mined by a private company, the government gets a royalty of Rs 27 and the mining company makes Rs 5,000. In the bauxite and aluminium sector, the figures are even worse. We're talking about daylight robbery to the tune of billions of dollars.
There are no teachers in any of the schools, Chandu says. They've all run away. Or have you chased them away? No, we only chase police. But why should teachers come here, to the jungle, when they get their salaries sitting at home?
The perennial problem, the real bane of people's lives, was the biggest landlord of all, the Forest Department. Every morning, forest officials, even the most junior of them, would appear in villages like a bad dream, preventing people from ploughing their fields, collecting firewood, plucking leaves, picking fruit, grazing their cattle, from living. They brought elephants to overrun fields and scattered babool seeds to destroy the soil as they passed by. People would be beaten, arrested, humiliated, their crops destroyed. Of course, from the forest department's point of view, these were illegal people engaged in unconstitutional activity, and the department was only implementing the Rule of Law.
When the Party is a suitor (as it is now in Dandakaranya), wooing the people, attentive to their every need, then it genuinely is a People's Party, its army genuinely a People's Army. But after the Revolution how easily this love affair can turn into a bitter marriage. How easily the People's Army can turn upon the people. Today in Dandakaranya, the Party wants to keep the bauxite in the mountain. Tomorrow, will it change its mind?
Most of the people, including those in the PLGA (People's Liberation Guerrilla Army), have a haemoglobin count that's between five and six, when the standard for Indian women is 11. There's TB caused by more than two years of chronic anaemia. Young children are suffering from Protein Energy Malnutrition Grade II, in medical terminology called Kwashiorkor. "It's an epidemic here, like in Biafra," the doctor says, "I have worked in villages before, but I've never seen anything like this." Apart from this, there's malaria, osteoporosis, tapeworm, severe ear and tooth infections and primary amenorrhea — which is when malnutrition during puberty causes a woman's menstrual cycle to disappear, or never appear in the first place. "There are no clinics in this forest apart from one or two in Gadchiroli. No doctors. No medicines."
Niti talks about the range of agricultural problems they have to deal with. Only 2 per cent of the land is irrigated. In Abujhmad, ploughing was unheard of until 10 years ago. In Gadchiroli on the other hand, hybrid seeds and chemical pesticides are edging their way in. "We need urgent help in the agriculture department," Vinod says. "We need people who know about seeds, organic pesticides, permaculture. With a little help we could do a lot."
*"Walking With The Comrades" (Outlook, 29 March 2010)
This legacy of rebellion has left behind a furious people who have been isolated and marginalised by the Indian government. The Indian Constitution, the moral underpinning of Indian democracy, was adopted by Parliament in 1950. It was a tragic day for tribal people. The Constitution ratified colonial policy and made the State custodian of tribal homelands. Overnight, it turned the entire tribal population into squatters on their own land. It denied them their traditional rights to forest produce, it criminalised a whole way of life. In exchange for the right to vote, it snatched away their right to livelihood and dignity.
Over the past five years or so, the governments of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal have signed hundreds of MoUs with corporate houses, worth several billion dollars, all of them secret, for steel plants, sponge-iron factories, power plants, aluminium refineries, dams and mines. In order for the MoUs to translate into real money, tribal people must be moved. Therefore, this war.
This CSR masks the outrageous economics that underpins the mining sector in India. For example, according to the recent Lokayukta report for Karnataka, for every tonne of iron ore mined by a private company, the government gets a royalty of Rs 27 and the mining company makes Rs 5,000. In the bauxite and aluminium sector, the figures are even worse. We're talking about daylight robbery to the tune of billions of dollars.
There are no teachers in any of the schools, Chandu says. They've all run away. Or have you chased them away? No, we only chase police. But why should teachers come here, to the jungle, when they get their salaries sitting at home?
The perennial problem, the real bane of people's lives, was the biggest landlord of all, the Forest Department. Every morning, forest officials, even the most junior of them, would appear in villages like a bad dream, preventing people from ploughing their fields, collecting firewood, plucking leaves, picking fruit, grazing their cattle, from living. They brought elephants to overrun fields and scattered babool seeds to destroy the soil as they passed by. People would be beaten, arrested, humiliated, their crops destroyed. Of course, from the forest department's point of view, these were illegal people engaged in unconstitutional activity, and the department was only implementing the Rule of Law.
When the Party is a suitor (as it is now in Dandakaranya), wooing the people, attentive to their every need, then it genuinely is a People's Party, its army genuinely a People's Army. But after the Revolution how easily this love affair can turn into a bitter marriage. How easily the People's Army can turn upon the people. Today in Dandakaranya, the Party wants to keep the bauxite in the mountain. Tomorrow, will it change its mind?
Most of the people, including those in the PLGA (People's Liberation Guerrilla Army), have a haemoglobin count that's between five and six, when the standard for Indian women is 11. There's TB caused by more than two years of chronic anaemia. Young children are suffering from Protein Energy Malnutrition Grade II, in medical terminology called Kwashiorkor. "It's an epidemic here, like in Biafra," the doctor says, "I have worked in villages before, but I've never seen anything like this." Apart from this, there's malaria, osteoporosis, tapeworm, severe ear and tooth infections and primary amenorrhea — which is when malnutrition during puberty causes a woman's menstrual cycle to disappear, or never appear in the first place. "There are no clinics in this forest apart from one or two in Gadchiroli. No doctors. No medicines."
Niti talks about the range of agricultural problems they have to deal with. Only 2 per cent of the land is irrigated. In Abujhmad, ploughing was unheard of until 10 years ago. In Gadchiroli on the other hand, hybrid seeds and chemical pesticides are edging their way in. "We need urgent help in the agriculture department," Vinod says. "We need people who know about seeds, organic pesticides, permaculture. With a little help we could do a lot."
*"Walking With The Comrades" (Outlook, 29 March 2010)
India's Tribals/Adivasis and Naxalite/Maoist Violence - 1
Arundhati Roy on India's tribals/adivasis and the Naxalite/Maoist violence*:
Right now in central India, the Maoists' guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa. They are people who, even after 60 years of India's Independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel.
If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have — their land. Clearly, they do not believe the government when it says it only wants to "develop" their region. Clearly, they do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forests in Dantewada by the National Mineral Development Corporation are being built for them to walk their children to school on. They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated. That is why they have taken up arms.
In 2008, an expert group appointed by the Planning Commission submitted a report called 'Development Challenges in Extremist-Affected Areas'. It said, "the Naxalite (Maoist) movement has to be recognised as a political movement with a strong base among the landless and poor peasantry and adivasis. Its emergence and growth need to be contextualised in the social conditions and experience of people who form a part of it. The huge gap between state policy and performance is a feature of these conditions. Though its professed long-term ideology is capturing state power by force, in its day-to-day manifestation, it is to be looked upon as basically a fight for social justice, equality, protection, security and local development."
They (the tribals) asked why when the government says that "the Writ of the State must run", it seems to only mean that police stations must be put in place. Not schools or clinics or housing, or clean water, or a fair price for forest produce, or even being left alone and free from the fear of the police — anything that would make people's lives a little easier. They asked why the 'Writ of the State' could never be taken to mean justice.
*"Mr Chidambaram's War" (Outlook, 9 November 2009)
Right now in central India, the Maoists' guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa. They are people who, even after 60 years of India's Independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel.
If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have — their land. Clearly, they do not believe the government when it says it only wants to "develop" their region. Clearly, they do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forests in Dantewada by the National Mineral Development Corporation are being built for them to walk their children to school on. They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated. That is why they have taken up arms.
In 2008, an expert group appointed by the Planning Commission submitted a report called 'Development Challenges in Extremist-Affected Areas'. It said, "the Naxalite (Maoist) movement has to be recognised as a political movement with a strong base among the landless and poor peasantry and adivasis. Its emergence and growth need to be contextualised in the social conditions and experience of people who form a part of it. The huge gap between state policy and performance is a feature of these conditions. Though its professed long-term ideology is capturing state power by force, in its day-to-day manifestation, it is to be looked upon as basically a fight for social justice, equality, protection, security and local development."
They (the tribals) asked why when the government says that "the Writ of the State must run", it seems to only mean that police stations must be put in place. Not schools or clinics or housing, or clean water, or a fair price for forest produce, or even being left alone and free from the fear of the police — anything that would make people's lives a little easier. They asked why the 'Writ of the State' could never be taken to mean justice.
*"Mr Chidambaram's War" (Outlook, 9 November 2009)
02 April 2010
India Vs Bharat: Modern-Industrial-Urban Vs Traditional-Agricultural-Rural
India and Bharat. Two different countries. Or at least, two different parts of the same country. "India" is industrial/urban/modern, while "Bharat" is agricultural/rural/traditional.
This is a popular theory. Then the question arises: Exactly how much of the country is "India" and how much is "Bharat"?
The answer depends on exactly what criterion you use to divide the two:
*My estimate for 2010.
Thus we can identify different 'India's and 'Bharat's.
Now these categories (industrial-urban-modern and agricultural-rural-traditional) do not merely represent differences in occupation, location and income/lifestyle. They represent something much bigger. They represent two different ages in the history of man: the Agricultural Age and the Industrial Age.
Now historical Ages differ from one another materially, no doubt. For example, they differ in food, clothing, shelter, tools, etc. But they also differ from one another "mentally" – that is, in mindset or worldview. By mindset/worldview, I mean the sum total of a human being's tastes, interests, opinions, attitudes, outlook, values, norms, knowledge, awareness and beliefs. Each Age has its own mindset/worldview. Accordingly, there is an Agricultural Age mindset/worldview and an Industrial Age mindset/worldview.
Now if we take this mindset/worldview as a criterion, where do we draw the line between 'India' and 'Bharat'? Firstly, when it comes to mindset/worldview, the "urban" vs "rural" classification (30% vs 70%) is misleading. A more correct division would be metro vs non-metro. This reduces 'India' from 30% to 7%, and increases 'Bharat' from 70% to 93%. That is, considering mindset/worldview as a criterion, the 8 metros are on one side and on the other side are not just the 6,00,000 villages or the 5,000 towns but also the 400 "cities" (so called just because their population is more than 1 lakh). So we have:
Now in these metros, it is only the middle class that has an Industrial Age mindset/worldview, not the lower class or poor. So what we are left with is the metro middle class (MMC). What % is this group? The McKinsey study indicates that about 25% of our urban population is middle class today. That gives us an MMC of about 2%. So finally we have:
Thus the real India–Bharat divide is 2%–98%. If you are reading this, you almost certainly belong to the metro middle class (MMC). That means you represent only 2% of India!
Note:
This is a popular theory. Then the question arises: Exactly how much of the country is "India" and how much is "Bharat"?
The answer depends on exactly what criterion you use to divide the two:
| India | Bharat | ||
| 1. Industrial – Agricultural | Employment (Industry + Services vs Agriculture) | ||
| 2. Urban – Rural | Location (Cities + Towns vs Villages) | ||
| 3. Rich – Poor | Income (Middle Class vs Lower Class + Poor) |
*My estimate for 2010.
Thus we can identify different 'India's and 'Bharat's.
Now these categories (industrial-urban-modern and agricultural-rural-traditional) do not merely represent differences in occupation, location and income/lifestyle. They represent something much bigger. They represent two different ages in the history of man: the Agricultural Age and the Industrial Age.
Now historical Ages differ from one another materially, no doubt. For example, they differ in food, clothing, shelter, tools, etc. But they also differ from one another "mentally" – that is, in mindset or worldview. By mindset/worldview, I mean the sum total of a human being's tastes, interests, opinions, attitudes, outlook, values, norms, knowledge, awareness and beliefs. Each Age has its own mindset/worldview. Accordingly, there is an Agricultural Age mindset/worldview and an Industrial Age mindset/worldview.
Now if we take this mindset/worldview as a criterion, where do we draw the line between 'India' and 'Bharat'? Firstly, when it comes to mindset/worldview, the "urban" vs "rural" classification (30% vs 70%) is misleading. A more correct division would be metro vs non-metro. This reduces 'India' from 30% to 7%, and increases 'Bharat' from 70% to 93%. That is, considering mindset/worldview as a criterion, the 8 metros are on one side and on the other side are not just the 6,00,000 villages or the 5,000 towns but also the 400 "cities" (so called just because their population is more than 1 lakh). So we have:
| Divide | Parameter | India | Bharat |
| 4. Metro – Non-metro | Location (Metros vs Cities + Towns + Villages) | 7% | 93% |
Now in these metros, it is only the middle class that has an Industrial Age mindset/worldview, not the lower class or poor. So what we are left with is the metro middle class (MMC). What % is this group? The McKinsey study indicates that about 25% of our urban population is middle class today. That gives us an MMC of about 2%. So finally we have:
| Divide | Parameter | India | Bharat |
| 5. Mindset / Worldview | Income + Location (Middle Class and Metro vs Lower Class, Poor + Cities, Towns, Villages) | 2% | 98% |
Thus the real India–Bharat divide is 2%–98%. If you are reading this, you almost certainly belong to the metro middle class (MMC). That means you represent only 2% of India!
Note:
- I have used the names "India" and "Bharat" merely because they are the most popular terms used to denote this divide. The more correct terms are Agricultural Age India/Bharat and Industrial Age India/Bharat (quite a mouthful). For me, India and Bharat are one and the same.
- I am NOT saying that "India" (Industrial Age India/Bharat) is better/superior/preferable/more desirable than "Bharat" (Agricultural Age India/Bharat). I am merely noting the difference between the two.
- I am NOT saying that the Industrial Age mindset/worldview is better/superior/preferable/more desirable than the Agricultural Age mindset/worldview. I am merely saying they are different from each other.
01 April 2010
India's Ranking/Position in the World Economy
Question: What is India's ranking/position in the world economy?
Answer: #12
Source: World Bank (2008 data)
Answer: #12
| Rank | Country | GDP ($ tr) |
| 1 | America | 14.20 |
| 2 | Japan | 4.91 |
| 3 | China | 4.33 |
| 4 | Germany | 3.65 |
| 5 | France | 2.85 |
| 6 | Britain | 2.65 |
| 7 | Italy | 2.29 |
| 8 | Brazil | 1.61 |
| 9 | Russia | 1.61 |
| 10 | Spain | 1.60 |
| 11 | Canada | 1.40 |
| 12 | India | 1.22 |
Source: World Bank (2008 data)
17 March 2010
Max Weber: The Iron Cage of Capitalism
Max Weber on the iron cage of capitalism in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905):
The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilised coal is burnt. In Baxter's view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the "saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment". But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.
Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. Today the spirit of religious asceticism – whether finally, who knows? – has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one's calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs. Where the fulfillment of the calling cannot directly be related to the highest spiritual and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it need not be felt simply as economic compulsion, the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at all. In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport.
No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanised petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilisation never before achieved."
The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilised coal is burnt. In Baxter's view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the "saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment". But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.
Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. Today the spirit of religious asceticism – whether finally, who knows? – has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one's calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs. Where the fulfillment of the calling cannot directly be related to the highest spiritual and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it need not be felt simply as economic compulsion, the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at all. In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport.
No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanised petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilisation never before achieved."
16 March 2010
Ugadi: The Indian/Hindu New Year
Today is Chaitra Shuddha Pratipada – the first day of the year in the Indian/Hindu calendar. The festival is celebrated as Ugadi (yugAdi) in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, and as Gudi Padwa (guDhI pADvA) in Maharashtra. This is
- the 5112nd year of the Kali Yuga.
- the 1932nd year of the Shalivahana Era.
- the year "Vikruti" (Samvatsara).
08 March 2010
The Three Periods in India's History
Based on the economic stages of history, we can divide India's history into the following three periods:
Industrial Age = Modern Age
| 1. 3000 BC – 1947 AD | Agricultural Age |
| 2. 1947 – 1991 | Semi-Industrial Age |
| 3. 1991 – | Industrial Age |
Industrial Age = Modern Age
02 March 2010
India 1991: Economic Reforms, Liberalisation, Capitalism
When the Industrial Revolution (1775–1850) happened, India was under British rule (1757–1947). The British did not bother to industrialise India. Nor did they allow Indians to industrialise on their own. As a result, India could not industrialise, and was stuck in the Agricultural Age. In 1947, India finally overthrew the British and became independent. Now she was free to industrialise/modernise and enter the Industrial Age.
There were two industrial systems: capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, industries are owned by individuals and enterprises. In socialism, industries are owned by the government. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister (1947–1964), chose socialism. With socialism, India's economy grew at about 3% per year. In other words, India industrialised/modernised at the rate of 3% per year. This went on for 40 years. Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi (1966–1984) and grandson Rajiv Gandhi (1984–1991) continued with socialism.
Then, in 1991, India became bankrupt. Things could not go on as before. Something had to change. P V Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister, did the unthinkable. He changed India's industrial system from socialism to capitalism. He dumped socialism and adopted capitalism. As a result, India's economy started growing at 6% per year – double the earlier rate. Later it started growing at 9% per year – triple the earlier rate. That is, after adopting capitalism in 1991, India's rate of industrialisation/modernisation has now tripled. India is now industrialising/modernising thrice as fast as she was doing during the period 1947–1991.
That is what is happening today. And that is the significance of 1991. People call it "economic reforms" or "liberalisation". In fact, the switch from socialism to capitalism was nothing short of a revolution*. As a milestone in modern India's history, 1991 is second in importance only to 1947.
*China had carried out its own revolution in 1978, in a much more decisive manner, with much more spectacular results.
There were two industrial systems: capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, industries are owned by individuals and enterprises. In socialism, industries are owned by the government. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister (1947–1964), chose socialism. With socialism, India's economy grew at about 3% per year. In other words, India industrialised/modernised at the rate of 3% per year. This went on for 40 years. Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi (1966–1984) and grandson Rajiv Gandhi (1984–1991) continued with socialism.
Then, in 1991, India became bankrupt. Things could not go on as before. Something had to change. P V Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister, did the unthinkable. He changed India's industrial system from socialism to capitalism. He dumped socialism and adopted capitalism. As a result, India's economy started growing at 6% per year – double the earlier rate. Later it started growing at 9% per year – triple the earlier rate. That is, after adopting capitalism in 1991, India's rate of industrialisation/modernisation has now tripled. India is now industrialising/modernising thrice as fast as she was doing during the period 1947–1991.
That is what is happening today. And that is the significance of 1991. People call it "economic reforms" or "liberalisation". In fact, the switch from socialism to capitalism was nothing short of a revolution*. As a milestone in modern India's history, 1991 is second in importance only to 1947.
*China had carried out its own revolution in 1978, in a much more decisive manner, with much more spectacular results.
21 February 2010
India, Modernity, Washing Machines and Women
The NCAER's study on the Indian middle class has some interesting data on the ownership of consumer durables in India:
Now colour TVs, refrigerators and washing machines cost about the same. But the ownership of washing machines is about half that of colour TVs and refrigerators. It is comparable to the ownership of scooters and motorcycles, which cost about 5 times as much.
So the 'deficit' in the ownership of washing machines (compared to colour TVs and refrigerators) is about 7% of the population. This translates to about 1.5 crore families. That is, 15 million families can afford a washing machine, but haven't bought one.
What does this mean? It means 15 million Indian women wash clothes by hand – even though they don't have to. It means 15 million Indian women spend half their day washing clothes, from morning to afternoon, everyday – even though they don't have to.
What does this say about modernity in India?
| Consumer Durable | Ownership |
| Colour TV | 14.6% |
| Refrigerator | 13.4% |
| Scooter | 7.9% |
| Washing machine | 7.2% |
| Motorcycle | 7.1% |
| Car/Jeep | 0.3% |
Now colour TVs, refrigerators and washing machines cost about the same. But the ownership of washing machines is about half that of colour TVs and refrigerators. It is comparable to the ownership of scooters and motorcycles, which cost about 5 times as much.
So the 'deficit' in the ownership of washing machines (compared to colour TVs and refrigerators) is about 7% of the population. This translates to about 1.5 crore families. That is, 15 million families can afford a washing machine, but haven't bought one.
What does this mean? It means 15 million Indian women wash clothes by hand – even though they don't have to. It means 15 million Indian women spend half their day washing clothes, from morning to afternoon, everyday – even though they don't have to.
What does this say about modernity in India?
06 February 2010
Degree of Industrialisation: India and Other Countries
How do we measure to what extent a country is industrialised? There is no economic indicator called "degree of industrialisation". A rough substitute would be the percentage of the population that is employed in the industry and services sectors (as against agriculture). Taking this as a measure, here are some countries and their "degree of industrialisation":
Data from CIA's "The World Factbook".
| Country | |
| India | |
| China | |
| America | |
| Britain | |
| Germany | |
| France | |
| Japan | |
| Russia | |
| Brazil | |
| Indonesia |
Data from CIA's "The World Factbook".
05 January 2010
India's Major/Largest Cities
India has 8 cities with more than 50 lakh people:
These are India's major/largest cities. These 8 cities account for 50% of India's urban population.
*2010 estimates.
| Rank | City | Population* |
| 1 | Bombay | 2.2 crore |
| 2 | Delhi | 1.9 crore |
| 3 | Calcutta | 1.6 crore |
| 4 | Madras | 74 lakh |
| 5 | Bangalore | 66 lakh |
| 6 | Hyderabad | 64 lakh |
| 7 | Poona | 55 lakh |
| 8 | Ahmedabad | 54 lakh |
These are India's major/largest cities. These 8 cities account for 50% of India's urban population.
*2010 estimates.
03 January 2010
The Size of India's Middle Class
Question: How big is India's middle class?
Answer: 5% (Yes, only five percent)
2001: NCAER
2005: McKinsey
McKinsey also makes forecasts for the relative sizes of the different income classes for the years 2015 and 2025:
So McKinsey's picture is roughly like this:
Answer: 5% (Yes, only five percent)
2001: NCAER
| Income Class | Monthly Family Income* | % of Total Population |
| Poor | < Rs 7,500 | |
| Lower Class | Rs 7,500 – Rs 17,000 | |
| Middle Class | Rs 17,000 – Rs 85,000 | |
| Rich | > Rs 85,000 |
2005: McKinsey
| Income Class | Monthly Family Income* | % of Total Population |
| Poor | < Rs 7,500 | |
| Lower Class | Rs 7,500 – Rs 17,000 | |
| Middle Class | Rs 17,000 – Rs 42,000 | |
| Upper Class | Rs 42,000 – Rs 85,000 | |
| Rich | > Rs 85,000 |
McKinsey also makes forecasts for the relative sizes of the different income classes for the years 2015 and 2025:
| Income Class | 2015 | 2025 |
| Poor | 35% | 22% |
| Lower Class | 43% | 36% |
| Middle Class | 19% | 32% |
| Upper Class | 1% | 9% |
| Rich | 1% | 2% |
So McKinsey's picture is roughly like this:
| Year | Poor | ||
| 2005 | 55% | ||
| 2015 | 35% | ||
| 2025 | 20% |
- Middle class will increase from 5% to 40%.
- Poverty will go down from 55% to 20%.
- Lower class will hover around 40%.
31 December 2009
Vishnuvardhan: Best/Top Movies
Vishnuvardhan, Kannada movie actor, passed away yesterday. He was 59.
He acted in 200 films in a career spanning 36 years, from Vamsha Vriksha (1972) to Apta Rakshaka (2008).
I am not an authority on VV's movies. Based on my limited viewing, these are his best/top movies and most memorable performances:
1. Bhootayyana Maga Ayyu (1974)
Gorur Ramaswami Iyengar's novel comes to the big screen. Lokesh is the zamindar Ayyu, but VV as the fiery villager Gulla steals the show.
2. Bandhana (1984)
A doctor (VV), his colleague (Suhasini) and her jealous husband (Jai Jagadish) make up the triangle in this hit movie of the 1980s.
3. Malaya Maruta (1986)
A poor boy becomes a famous classical singer, with the blessings of his deceased guru. An excellent score by Vijaybhaskar makes this a treat for music lovers.
4. Suprabhata (1988)
VV falls in love with a deaf-mute girl who turns out to be a rape victim. A sensitive love story, with a fine performance from Suhasini.
5. Muttina Haara (1990)
The story of a soldier: 1948 Pakistan war - injured - falls in love - marries - 1962 China war - captured - tortured - meets a hero's end. Moving, inspiring, patriotic.
6. Nishkarsha (1993)
A bunch of terrorists take control of a building and hold some civilians hostage. Enter the Anti Terrorist Squad and Major VV. Kannada cinema's first Hollywood-style action movie.
He acted in 200 films in a career spanning 36 years, from Vamsha Vriksha (1972) to Apta Rakshaka (2008).
I am not an authority on VV's movies. Based on my limited viewing, these are his best/top movies and most memorable performances:
1. Bhootayyana Maga Ayyu (1974)
Gorur Ramaswami Iyengar's novel comes to the big screen. Lokesh is the zamindar Ayyu, but VV as the fiery villager Gulla steals the show.
2. Bandhana (1984)
A doctor (VV), his colleague (Suhasini) and her jealous husband (Jai Jagadish) make up the triangle in this hit movie of the 1980s.
3. Malaya Maruta (1986)
A poor boy becomes a famous classical singer, with the blessings of his deceased guru. An excellent score by Vijaybhaskar makes this a treat for music lovers.
4. Suprabhata (1988)
VV falls in love with a deaf-mute girl who turns out to be a rape victim. A sensitive love story, with a fine performance from Suhasini.
5. Muttina Haara (1990)
The story of a soldier: 1948 Pakistan war - injured - falls in love - marries - 1962 China war - captured - tortured - meets a hero's end. Moving, inspiring, patriotic.
6. Nishkarsha (1993)
A bunch of terrorists take control of a building and hold some civilians hostage. Enter the Anti Terrorist Squad and Major VV. Kannada cinema's first Hollywood-style action movie.
29 December 2009
India: Cities, Towns, Villages
Here is a snapshot look at India's cities, towns and villages:
Cities are usually district capitals, while towns are usually taluk capitals.
*Approximate
| City | |||
| Town | |||
| Village |
Cities are usually district capitals, while towns are usually taluk capitals.
*Approximate
24 December 2009
Christian Missionaries in India
Here is an example of the activities of Christian missionaries in India.
23 December 2009
Alvin Toffler on the Modern World/Age
Alvin Toffler on the modern world/age in "The Third Wave" (1980):
Until now the human race has undergone two great waves of change, each one largely obliterating earlier cultures or civilisations and replacing them with ways of life inconceivable to those who came before. The First Wave of change – the agricultural revolution – took thousands of years to play itself out. The Second Wave – the rise of industrial civilisation – took a mere three hundred years.
(First chapter)
Some historians may take issue with the way this book divides civilisation into only three parts: a First Wave agricultural phase, a Second Wave industrial phase, and a Third Wave phase now beginning.
(Introduction)
A new civilisation is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it.
(First line of the book)
Until now the human race has undergone two great waves of change, each one largely obliterating earlier cultures or civilisations and replacing them with ways of life inconceivable to those who came before. The First Wave of change – the agricultural revolution – took thousands of years to play itself out. The Second Wave – the rise of industrial civilisation – took a mere three hundred years.
(First chapter)
Some historians may take issue with the way this book divides civilisation into only three parts: a First Wave agricultural phase, a Second Wave industrial phase, and a Third Wave phase now beginning.
(Introduction)
A new civilisation is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it.
(First line of the book)
22 December 2009
A Short Economic History of Modern India
Swaminathan Aiyar, in a brilliant article*, gives us a short economic history of modern India:
At last week's annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, many speakers spoke of the need for governments to reduce controls and trade barriers and let entrepreneurs get on with the job. They also stressed the vital roles that governments did indeed need to perform: ensuring law and order, the enforcement of contracts, honest governance and the creation of basic infrastructure.
Dissenters will say this sounds suspiciously close to the formula of the British Raj. The result then was not prosperity but poverty and stagnation. Now that we are in our 50th anniversary year of independence, many people will ask: why did liberal economics prove an economic failure during the British Raj? And why should it be any more successful today?
Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the second biggest industrial power in the world (next only to China). When the British Raj ended in 1947, India was a poverty-stricken nation with minimal modern industry. Nationalist leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru blamed this decline on colonial exploitation. The British did not see it that way. They thought they had brought peace to a subcontinent that was earlier riven with constant war; had created political stability and rule of law where there had been neither; created an efficient and impartial civil service and judiciary; built one of the biggest railway networks in the world.
However, GDP growth in the first half of this century was barely 1% per year, just keeping pace with population growth. Food availability per capita declined. Indian artisans, who once dominated world industry, were decimated by the Industrial Revolution. And while in Europe the Industrial Revolution replaced handloom weavers with local textile mills, in India it replaced them largely with Lancashire textiles. Jawaharlal Nehru complained that this de-industrialisation halved India's urban population and forced once-prosperous industrial workers back to the land. He felt free trade was a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and prevent Indian industry from growing.
So after independence Nehru went for rapid industrialisation through import substitution and by taxing agriculture through adverse terms of trade. He felt agriculture lacked the potential to reduce poverty or increase employment and could only be a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided additional jobs.
During the British Raj, India ran a persistent trade surplus. The ratio of India's exports to imports was 172.5% in 1840-69, 148% in 1870-1912, 133.4% in 1913-38. This persistent trade surplus, averaging 1.5% of GDP, was used to transfer wealth to Britain. So Nehru viewed export-orientation as a tool of colonial exploitation. He switched the emphasis from exports to import substitution. He viewed technical education as vital for industrialisation, but viewed primary education as less important and so did less for literacy than East Asian countries.
This strategy was initially hailed as a success. GDP growth rose to 3.5% per year, almost thrice the rate achieved in the last 50 years of the British Raj. Planning was high fashion at the time and Indian planning was at the very forefront of development economics. Only much later did East Asian countries demonstrate that 3.5% growth was slow, not fast, and that a different strategy – emphasising exports, agriculture and primary education and entrepreneurship – could produce much better results.
Nehru's biggest mistake related to agriculture. He failed to see, as Korea and Taiwan did, that with enough public investment and new technology, agriculture could be a dynamic sector that raised the living standards of the masses. The industrial sector was much too small to create much income or employment and so taxing agriculture to finance industrialisation did not reduce poverty in India during Nehru's rule or the Garibi Hatao phase of Indira Gandhi. It started declining only from the mid-1970s onwards, when the spread of the green revolution finally lowered real food prices and raised real rural wages. Higher rural incomes provided a firmer basis for rapid industrial growth than Nehru's earlier import substitution.
Nehru failed to see that the really big blow India suffered under the British was not in industry but agriculture. Ashok Desai estimates that grain yields in 1947 were one third of those in Mughal times. In the first half of this century, food production rose by only 0.5% per year, half the rate of population growth. This, not de-industrialisation, was the main cause of poverty in a country which was 85% rural.
The whole de-industrialisation thesis was flawed. Certainly the artisans of old suffered, but under the Raj a new breed of modern Indian entrepreneurs came up. The share of industry in India's GDP rose from 3.8 percent in 1913 to 7.5% by 1947 and the share of manufactures in India's exports rose from 22.4% in 1913 to 30% in the late 1930s. Modern industry employed fewer persons than the old artisan industry, but its output was more competitive.
Nehru's anti-export bias was mistaken. The British may have used trade exploitatively, but it had enormous possibilities with the end of empire. The East Asians saw this, but were regarded with contempt by Nehru as US puppets. They had the last laugh.
Let us return to where we started. Why did liberal economics and good governance not lead to prosperity during the British Raj? The main reasons are:
*"De-industrialisation Thesis Was Flawed", The Times of India (29 September 1996)
At last week's annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, many speakers spoke of the need for governments to reduce controls and trade barriers and let entrepreneurs get on with the job. They also stressed the vital roles that governments did indeed need to perform: ensuring law and order, the enforcement of contracts, honest governance and the creation of basic infrastructure.
Dissenters will say this sounds suspiciously close to the formula of the British Raj. The result then was not prosperity but poverty and stagnation. Now that we are in our 50th anniversary year of independence, many people will ask: why did liberal economics prove an economic failure during the British Raj? And why should it be any more successful today?
Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the second biggest industrial power in the world (next only to China). When the British Raj ended in 1947, India was a poverty-stricken nation with minimal modern industry. Nationalist leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru blamed this decline on colonial exploitation. The British did not see it that way. They thought they had brought peace to a subcontinent that was earlier riven with constant war; had created political stability and rule of law where there had been neither; created an efficient and impartial civil service and judiciary; built one of the biggest railway networks in the world.
However, GDP growth in the first half of this century was barely 1% per year, just keeping pace with population growth. Food availability per capita declined. Indian artisans, who once dominated world industry, were decimated by the Industrial Revolution. And while in Europe the Industrial Revolution replaced handloom weavers with local textile mills, in India it replaced them largely with Lancashire textiles. Jawaharlal Nehru complained that this de-industrialisation halved India's urban population and forced once-prosperous industrial workers back to the land. He felt free trade was a British ploy to force its manufactures on India and prevent Indian industry from growing.
So after independence Nehru went for rapid industrialisation through import substitution and by taxing agriculture through adverse terms of trade. He felt agriculture lacked the potential to reduce poverty or increase employment and could only be a holding ground for surplus labour till industry provided additional jobs.
During the British Raj, India ran a persistent trade surplus. The ratio of India's exports to imports was 172.5% in 1840-69, 148% in 1870-1912, 133.4% in 1913-38. This persistent trade surplus, averaging 1.5% of GDP, was used to transfer wealth to Britain. So Nehru viewed export-orientation as a tool of colonial exploitation. He switched the emphasis from exports to import substitution. He viewed technical education as vital for industrialisation, but viewed primary education as less important and so did less for literacy than East Asian countries.
This strategy was initially hailed as a success. GDP growth rose to 3.5% per year, almost thrice the rate achieved in the last 50 years of the British Raj. Planning was high fashion at the time and Indian planning was at the very forefront of development economics. Only much later did East Asian countries demonstrate that 3.5% growth was slow, not fast, and that a different strategy – emphasising exports, agriculture and primary education and entrepreneurship – could produce much better results.
Nehru's biggest mistake related to agriculture. He failed to see, as Korea and Taiwan did, that with enough public investment and new technology, agriculture could be a dynamic sector that raised the living standards of the masses. The industrial sector was much too small to create much income or employment and so taxing agriculture to finance industrialisation did not reduce poverty in India during Nehru's rule or the Garibi Hatao phase of Indira Gandhi. It started declining only from the mid-1970s onwards, when the spread of the green revolution finally lowered real food prices and raised real rural wages. Higher rural incomes provided a firmer basis for rapid industrial growth than Nehru's earlier import substitution.
Nehru failed to see that the really big blow India suffered under the British was not in industry but agriculture. Ashok Desai estimates that grain yields in 1947 were one third of those in Mughal times. In the first half of this century, food production rose by only 0.5% per year, half the rate of population growth. This, not de-industrialisation, was the main cause of poverty in a country which was 85% rural.
The whole de-industrialisation thesis was flawed. Certainly the artisans of old suffered, but under the Raj a new breed of modern Indian entrepreneurs came up. The share of industry in India's GDP rose from 3.8 percent in 1913 to 7.5% by 1947 and the share of manufactures in India's exports rose from 22.4% in 1913 to 30% in the late 1930s. Modern industry employed fewer persons than the old artisan industry, but its output was more competitive.
Nehru's anti-export bias was mistaken. The British may have used trade exploitatively, but it had enormous possibilities with the end of empire. The East Asians saw this, but were regarded with contempt by Nehru as US puppets. They had the last laugh.
Let us return to where we started. Why did liberal economics and good governance not lead to prosperity during the British Raj? The main reasons are:
- The British sadly neglected agriculture and rural infrastructure, far more so than industry.
- The British Raj was racist, favouring British entrepreneurs and goods over Indian ones. This racism was probably important that the alleged lack of tariff encouragement to Indian manufacturers.
- The British sadly neglected primary education and literacy. By contrast, East Asian countries had high levels of literacy by 1950.
- The British used India's trade surpluses to remit capital to the UK instead of investing it in India's growth.
*"De-industrialisation Thesis Was Flawed", The Times of India (29 September 1996)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
