Democratically backward

The perceived conflict between development and defence has been the theme of self-professed peaceniks. The argument runs that if the reso...

The perceived conflict between development and defence has been the theme of self-professed peaceniks. The argument runs that if the resources diverted to armaments were devoted to development, the resultant public welfare would ensure security. The human development reports of the United Nations De-velopment Programme rub it in by simultaneously providing data on defence sp- ending along with statistics of human development. There can be no quarrel with the approach except that it judges countries in isolation, without due weightage to their security environment.

In respect of countries like India and Pakistan, the choice is not so clear. Unres-olved bilateral problems force them to arm themselves against each other. In the case of India, hostile relationship with China, not entirely of our own choosing, has underlined the need of defence preparedness by aggravating the sense of insecurity. Al-so, defence and development are not alwa-ys incompatible. Investment in defence, even if it is largely inmaintaining a large standing army, has its spin-off.But, unfortunately, its impact on public welfare is not adequate to mitigate the state of deprivation of the people.

Recently, a rider has been added to this development versus defence debate with the media focusing on the quality of life of the voters being wooed by the political parties. Visuals of shacks without sanitation and water supply or rural bustees steeped in human misery are projected on the television screen to claim that the politicians are insensitive to people’s socio-economic condition. While the wretchedness of the people is undoubted, video-cameras also unleash the tendency to politicise the problem.

Story continues below this ad

It is a good gimmick except that not many politicians can take recourse to it. But as journalism, it is not even belated recognition that the media should spare some attention to the ground situation, instead of concentrating on power politics and caste and religious divisions. All the while there have been innumerable cases ofnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) promoting self-reliance and co-operation among the people to overcome the problems of want.

During the first two decades of independence the accent was on establishment of heavy industry and the building of large irrigation and power projects. They added to national wealth but their trickle-down effect has been disappointing. The alternate strategy was to attack poverty directly, at the source, by targeting the poor in the nation-building programme.

That brings into the picture community development and participatory approach with the NGOs playing a key role. Most politicians have commended the work of the NGOs which have also received official recognition in most cases. Administrative bottlenecks in the way of speedy clearance of self-help projects and other inputs have to be identified from place to place.

It is a typically urban attitude that the authorities should hand over on a platter goodies which will transform slums into residential areas without theinhabitants even lifting their little fingers. The spate of “regularisation” of clusters of illegal constructions in towns and cities, throwing town planing to the winds, is an example. It is a quid pro quo with the `colonies’ being recognised in return for bulk votes of the inhabitants. It does not lead to development but growth of more slums.

Story continues below this ad

As Amartya Sen has been repeatedly stressing, even if countries like China have made tremendous progress in some respects without democracy or freedom of choice it is a surface phenomenon. The people have no role in it. Against this background, it is odd that an editor of the stature of Vinod Mehta should advise the people not to vote because their living conditions were wretched. During the brief emergency period (1975-77) we had known how precious the democratic way of life was. In Pakistan during the Ayub Khan period the people would envy us, with all our problems and miseries.

Nation-building through administrative effort can never be wholesome. That was whyGandhiji put forward his constructive programme and insisted that Congressmen should not forsake it for more glamorous pursuits. On the other hand, Rajiv Gandhi bemoaned the fact that 75 percent of the resources committed to development did not reach the intended beneficiaries. He could not think of alternative means of development. He was alien to Gandhiji’s thinking.