The same unfettered capitalism that brought more people out of poverty in the 00s than in 50 years of draconian socialism had before.
In what sense? GDP numbers, per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity are pretty reliable indicators of growth.
This is laughable. Take a look at the states numbers. Some of the biggest growth rates have been registered by BJP ruled states. This is the party of the small businessman, the party of disinvestment, the party of simplifying processes and less red-tape. It is odd when one national party shows rampant corruption and favouritism in deals for land, coal blocks and the digital spectrum, it is the other party accused of cronyism.
And that Hindutva nonsense (while deplorable) affects public policy, how exactly?
I agree that the BJP is not the best political party in the world, but it is much better than the Congress has been in the past ten years, and miles better than the idiotic rag-tag bunch of JP Narayan followers who keep calling for a third front. And the less said about the Communists, the better.
The discussion in the UK General Election thread was very out of topic, so continuing from the above...
India has never had 50 years of "draconian socialism". This is post-liberlisation hyperbole from the usual suspects in the over-the-top media. In short, economic policies pre-1991 can be divided into 4 phases:
1) Nehruvian economics: This is where most people make a massive mistake. It is a myth that the pernicious licence raj system was dominant during this time. Yes, we had 5 year planning systems borrowed from the Soviets but that was only natural, since Soviet Russia was the only instance of an agrarian society modernizing in record time. Of course, there is nothing moral about Stalin, but one cannot argue with the results on the economic front. The economic system during the time had the state in the driving state (which was only natural coming as it did after 200 years of exploitation which began from a bunch of traders) but it also recognized that private capital had a role to play. That is why it was called a mixed economy, people keep forgetting the mixed part at all times. It led to steady growth, but wasn't perfect. One of the biggest problems was that land reform after independence was piecemeal, which is ironic given Nehru and the Congress' ideological stand on the matter.
2) Post-Nehru: People do not quite appreciate the state of the country when Nehru died. We had suffered a demoralizing defeat in war, the economy needed revitalization since the cracks where beginning to show and most importantly, people just did not know what would happen to the country. It is easy for us to take democracy for granted, but back then, it was a big deal. Shastri stepped in and promptly continued his mentor's work. Shasri recognized that changes needed to be made and he started it. It was exactly what we needed, the imperfections of the last 15 years to be addressed and reform to be instituted. When I say reform, I don't mean the meaning it takes when one uses the word nowadays. Farm productivity was slowly rising, incomes were slowly rising, primary education was being improved. The greatness of Shastri was evident in how he did not allow demands for excessive spending on defence to gain ground, despite 1962. Nowadays, 11% growth in defence budget is seen as a bad thing! The tragedy of modern India is Shastri passing away at a crucial period.
3) Indira Gandhi: This is where things turned bad. Indira needed to consolidate her position. She was a novice, she was in power because of her father and she was nothing like him. She was sympathetic to leftist views, as any daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru would be, but she did not have the intellect he did. In come people like P.N. Haksar and the like. Since the country was overwhelmingly leftist at the time, she had to crank it up if he had to win her battle with the Syndicate. Therefore, we had the nationalization of banks and the abolition of privy purses (which to be fair to her, should have happened a long time ago). She changed the licence raj system and put in some ridiculous legislation. It wasn't in any way socialist. The only example of socialism this country has seen is in Kerala and Bengal, and even there it hasn't been done properly.
4) Prologue to 1991: What people don't understand is that 1991 was an accident. It was never meant to happen that way, the media has twisted it to seem as if what happened then was a conscious choice. Indira Gandhi during her last years saw the need to tone it down a little bit. Her Garibi Hatao plank was more than 10 years old, the country was in the tubes. She started liberalizing a bit which Rajiv Gandhi continued till his ouster after the Bofors Scam.
Therefore, to say we had 50 years of "draconian socialism" is overly simplistic and something straight out of mainstream media. Further, there is plenty of literature to prove that the claim of lifting more people out of poverty is nonsense. It is nonsense to say this when 70% of the country earns less than a dollar a day. Poverty is measured by the government on completely arbitrary lines, which make no sense.
Onto the other points, GDP alone is a wrong way to measure growth in the economy because it does not quite give an accurate macroeconomic picture. The informal economy is ignored. 7%, 10% doesn't quite show how people have benefited. The Gini coefficient has only seen an upward trend sine 2000. Which GDP data captures this? Even during the last phase of "boom" during UPA-1, there was no improvement in core issues like public health, housing, infrastructure and the like.
My job takes me across the country and as a child of a Central Government employee, I have lived in all states except the North-East. I have lived for more than a year in 3 BJP ruled states: Gujarat, MP and Chhattisgarh. Even in Gujarat, the toast of the neo-liberal crowd, conditions in rural areas are pathetic. 20 kms from Ahmedabad, you can find a government hospital. No proper beds, zero infrastructure. The plight of the poor in Chhattisgarh would make you weep. They just get voted in because they're slightly better than the Congress which is a nonsensical way to vote.
This same government has flouted the directions of the Supreme Court on auction of natural resources, proceeded very slowly against the involved in either the Coal Scam or 2G, tried to sell the family gold for a pittance, literally giving away land, fertile land to benefit their masters in ivory towers. All this in one year. Both national parties are thieves. The BJP's PR Division is better at spinning things. They know which buttons to push and because we're gullible fools, we fall in line.
The most basic duty of the state is to ensure security to all its citizens. If it cannot do that, if it has to resort to nonsense like Ghar Wapasi and Love Jihad, it has no moral right to remain in power.
Then you agree. The entire discussion started when I said there was no proper choice in an election. One has to remember that the entire present lot in the BJP came up from JP's agitations. He taught them. He was a real socialist. This lot, bunch of thieves.
Very subtle TMH..