Economic Progress and Regress vis-à-vis Democracy

 

Economic Progress and Regress vis-à-vis Democracy

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I am not an economist. But I am sane and intelligent, and also aim to be honest and logical. Also, I love my country passionately, and it is this love which made me, right from my high school days (and actually even earlier), want to devote my life for Indian Culture, and made me study so many cultural subjects (including history, religion, music, languages, and all aspects of civilizational culture) in detail. Hence, even when I have no axes to grind and no personal vested interests to further, and even when I know I am earning the hatred of countless mindless fanatics, bhakts and trolls, I find it necessary to say what I want to say.

Therefore, what I am writing in this article does not get invalidated by the fact that I am not an economist, and I request all other sane, intelligent, honest and logical people who love this country to read and think about what I am writing.

Today there are three things necessary for our country:

1. Protection and Preservation of our Indian culture and identity (including our flora, fauna, ecology and natural environment) from its enemies, and justice and equality for Hindus and every aspect of Indian culture: call this Hindutva.

2. Economic and Social development and progress with justice for all.

3. An atmosphere of Democratic freedom where every genuine citizen can live in an India where "the mind is without fear and the head is held high".

 

I have written plenty about the first point, in my books and articles, and will not waste time here in repeating all that. As I have shown in my articles (while bearing up to all the hatred generated against me among political bhakts), Hinduism and Indian culture face much more lethal dangers from the pseudo-Hindutva of the BJP Parivar than from the openly anti-Hindu Breaking India Forces. That the BJP will definitely come back to power after the results of the Lok Sabha Elections (just around two months away) is, to my mind at least, a foregone conclusion, and I do not expect any genuine and concrete improvement in the situation after that. And this article is not about Hindutva.

It is primarily about democracy. I never thought it would be necessary for me to ever write an article on such a topic in a country where no-one dares to dismiss the importance of Democracy (while there may be sharply divergent views on Hindutva and on Economic Policies). But there seems to be an increasingly rather cockeyed attitude towards democracy in India. I realize this when I see BJP supporters either refusing to discuss the state of Indian democracy under the BJP, or justify whatever is happening by asking us to ignore it and look instead at the economic developments taking place under this government, or simply deny the anti-democratic trends sweeping India today by indulging in whataboutery.

 

The first instance of this was when I saw a tweet by Koenraad Elst on 30-1-2024, in reply to someone else, saying "You secularists and India-watchers claim that the BJP is a threat to democracy, ready to abolish the elections. Pray, why would a party that keeps winning at elections abolish them? So far, the only party to institute dictatorship, 1975-77, was Congress".

I wrote to him: "Your statement "why would a party which keeps winning at elections abolish them?" is in general logical. Why convert it into an illogical statement by adding: "So far the only party to institute dictatorship, 1975 to 1977, was Congress" Since Indira Gandhi did hold elections and lose them, it disproves the idea that she had instituted a dictatorship. The opposition parties then, far from being coerced into splitting (with the unbridled use of government agencies like the ED, CBI, RAW and IT agencies) with breakaway factions joining the ruling party and strengthening it, the entire opposition united against the Congress. Surely Indira Gandhi's Emergency is an old and outdated strawman to suggest by contrast that the present government is a model of democracy rather than a dictatorship?"

Koenraad saw the force of this argument and tweeted again noting my objection.

 

And now, we have Anand Ranganathan, whose book "Hindus in Hindu Rashtra" is undoubtedly a basic manual for what Political Hindutva should be all about, suddenly doing what every Hindu critic of the BJP's failure to uphold Hindutva does when it is election time: going all out to attack the opposition parties and whitewash the BJP!

A few days ago I saw a TV discussion where Anand Ranganathan forcefully demands that Kejriwal should resign because he had said once upon a time that ruling politicians accused of corruption should resign from their posts. Apparently, Ranganathan ji (for whom I need not reiterate I have the greatest respect) has not seen the countless ferocious statements by top BJP leaders in the past accusing powerful and extremely corrupt politicians from opposition parties of gross corruption, and siccing the ED and other government agencies on them and initiating cases against them (and in many cases even sending them to prison), until those opposition politicians defected to the BJP. After that, all cases and accusations are withdrawn, the (now BJP) politicians are completely whitewashed and given top party posts, election tickets and ministerships. What Kejriwal may have said earlier, in more democratic times, does not apply (especially in biased and partisan discussions) in present circumstances where two different rules are very brazenly applied, and where opposition leaders who cannot be easily defeated otherwise are knocked out of action by using government agencies, splitting parties, arresting opposition chief ministers and leaders, using a captive EC to declare breakaway groups (which support the BJP) as the real original parties, and then new governments are formed in sharp opposition to the expressed wishes of the voters. Asking Kejriwal to resign quietly is like Gandhiji asking Hindus to quietly allow themselves to be slaughtered by Muslims: "Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we must face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus, we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile, we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India" (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 87, p.218-9).

So, it appears Kejriwal's "crime" is not the "corruption" he is accused of: his crime is that he is not joining the BJP and getting whitewashed and absolved of all his "crimes" like countless other opposition leaders and politicians, or else, failing that, that he is not quietly surrendering without a fight because of something he had said once upon a time, and thereby he is committing the crime of refusing to do his duty of helping to usher in "a new India".

 

Now today, I saw a video "Anand Ranganathan's Fierce takedown of Opposition. Slams 'BJP Killing Democracy' War Cry; Shows Cong. Mirror":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWqwuQKcJY4

Anand Ranganathan defends the BJP from the "'BJP Killing Democracy' War Cry" by citing the example of Mamata Banerjee's activities in Bengal! But of course, Mamata Banerjee is an anti-democratic dictator and a horror story in her own right. Naturally no-one would want her to extend her anti-democratic dictatorial powers over the whole of India. But how does this piece of whataboutery justify the fact that every single opposition party and leader possible all over India is being targeted and destroyed out of existence, that even the EC is now directly under the control of the BJP government (after the recent amendment replacing the CJ of the SC by a cabinet minister in appointing and controlling Election Commissioners), that opposition party funds (already in a depleted state because of various governmental actions) are cancelled out by freezing their accounts, that a Personality Cult replete with massive posters and statues (yes, defenders can point out the massive cutouts of Great Leaders in certain parts of India, e.g. Tamilnadu, as "whatabout" reference points) and overpowering "1984" type Big Brother Brainwashing, as in North Korea or China, is being promoted all over India, that everything is being controlled by the Government as in Orwell's "1984"? All this whataboutery does not wipe out the horrors of what India could become if democratic norms being crushed underfoot becomes the New Normal.       

In a recent article (about the disease of changing place-names), I wrote the following in passing: "I will not waste time in discussing whether or not India's development is the sudden doing of one political party and great Leader, or whether it is a natural continuing process of what has been happening in the last few decades; nor in discussing whether the development has benefitted all sections or only the powerful sections of society. Every person who has any opinion to give on these matters will have his own views and arguments, and discussion and debate is futile."

But it is galling when India's alleged or real Great Economic Leap under the Great Leader and Great Party is used as an argument to defend the crushing underfoot of democracy.

   

Economic Development in Germany in the Twentieth Century

As I wrote above, I am not an economist, and do not and cannot claim to be an authority on the criteria for judging economic development. But I take here just one of the criteria usually taken by economists for judging the economic status and progress of any country: the exchange rate of the country's currency. And I use the example of the exchange rate of German currency (the Mark) to illustrate what I am saying (which is that citing economic development to excuse the throttling of democracy and freedom is not a valid argument).

1. Before World War I Germany was a prosperous country, with a gold-backed currency, expanding industry, and world leadership in optics, chemicals, and machinery. The German Mark, the British shilling, the French franc, and the Italian lira all had about equal value, and all were exchanged four or five to the dollar.

2. The German mark stabilised in early 1922 but thereafter hyper-inflation took off, with the mark falling in exchanges from 320 marks per dollar in mid 1922 to 7,400 marks per US dollar by December 1922. This hyperinflation continued into 1923, and by November 1923, one US dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 marks.

Yes, the above is not a misprint: the war and the treaty were followed by the hyper-inflation of the early 1920s that wreaked havoc on Germany's social structure and political stability. During that inflation, the value of the nation's currency, the Papiermark, collapsed from 8.9 per US$1 in 1918 to 4.2 trillion per US$1 by November 1923.

3. Dollar per German Marks rate through the various periods of German history in the twentieth century:

3A. The German "Mark" Rate vis-à-vis 1 dollar from 1913 to 1918:

1913	4.2030 Mark
1914	4.2300 Mark
1915	4.8470 Mark
1916	5.4950 Mark
1917	5.7730 Mark
1918	7.8620 Mark

 

3B. Post First World War 1919-1924:

1919	32.8520 Mark
1920	57.1100 Mark
1921	83.0220 Mark
1922	430.4780 Mark
1923	50000.0000 Mark
1924	433000000000.0000 Mark

 

3C. Replaced in 1924 by a new currency "Reichsmark", from 1924-1932:

1925	4.2010 Reichsmark
1926	4.2020 Reichsmark
1927	4.2080 Reichsmark
1928	4.1910 Reichsmark
1929	4.2000 Reichsmark
1930	4.1920 Reichsmark
1931	4.2320 Reichsmark
1932	4.2110 Reichsmark

 

3D. Hitler captured power on 30 January 1933 and ruled till 1945:

1933	3.2770 Reichsmark
1934	2.5400 Reichsmark
1935	2.4840 Reichsmark
1936	2.4820 Reichsmark
1937	2.4870 Reichsmark
1938	2.4900 Reichsmark
1939	2.4960 Reichsmark
1940	2.4990 Reichsmark
1941	19.7230 Reichsmark
1945	1.1050 Reichsmark

 

3E. Hitler was defeated on 8 May 1945. A new currency "Deutsche mark" from 1946:

1948	574.7130 Deutsche mark
1949	588.5820 Deutsche mark
1950	4.1950 Deutsche mark
1951	4.1950 Deutsche mark
1952	4.1950 Deutsche mark
1953	4.1950 Deutsche mark
1954	4.1950 Deutsche mark
1955	4.2080 Deutsche mark
1956	4.2040 Deutsche mark
1957	4.2020 Deutsche mark
1958	4.1930 Deutsche mark
1959	4.1800 Deutsche mark
1960	4.1710 Deutsche mark
1961	4.0160 Deutsche mark
1962	3.9980 Deutsche mark
1963	3.9870 Deutsche mark
1964	3.9750 Deutsche mark
1965	3.9940 Deutsche mark
1966	3.9990 Deutsche mark
1967	3.9870 Deutsche mark
1968	3.9920 Deutsche mark
1969	3.9230 Deutsche mark
1970	3.6460 Deutsche mark
1971	3.4760 Deutsche mark
1972	3.1880 Deutsche mark
1973	2.6480 Deutsche mark
1974	2.5820 Deutsche mark
1975	2.4550 Deutsche mark
1976	2.5170 Deutsche mark
1977	2.3210 Deutsche mark
1978	2.0050 Deutsche mark
1979	1.8340 Deutsche mark
1980	1.8180 Deutsche mark
1981	2.2630 Deutsche mark
1982	2.4280 Deutsche mark
1983	2.5540 Deutsche mark
1984	2.8450 Deutsche mark
1985	2.9420 Deutsche mark
1986	2.1710 Deutsche mark
1987	1.7980 Deutsche mark
1988	1.7570 Deutsche mark
1989	1.8810 Deutsche mark
1990	1.6170 Deutsche mark
1991	1.6610 Deutsche mark
1992	1.5620 Deutsche mark
1993	1.6550 Deutsche mark
1994	1.6220 Deutsche mark
1995	1.4320 Deutsche mark
1996	1.5050 Deutsche mark
1997	1.7350 Deutsche mark
1998	1.7600 Deutsche mark

Note: the best exchange rate for Germany through all the years of the last century was 1.1050 during Hitler's reign. After that, it went below 2 only long after that: after 1987 and, probably, the fall of the Soviet Union, and, in 1989, the merger of east and West Germany! But never as low as 1.1050!

I repeat: I am not an economist, and will not be interested in debating the above point. but I don't think anyone will deny that Germany's economy rose to great heights during the Nazi regime in countless ways. That these were assisted by ruthless anti-democratic actions like curbing the rights of workers (even to the extent of encouraging what was practically slave labor), giving free reign to capitalist exploitation, and building up a powerful military machine, is a side matter, but all this could only be achieved through a ruthless authoritarian and totalitarian regime.Economic development and power does not justify the trampling of democratic rights.

It should be obvious that I am not recommending this kind of economic development. Economic development and power does not justify the trampling of democratic rights. Ultimately it brought ruin to Germany. Let me also admit that there is a very fundamental difference between the authoritarianism and totalitarianism a century ago in Germany, and what is happening in India today:

1. Those were technologically much more backward times as compared to today. Today, authoritarianism and totalitarianism can achieve unbelievably higher and incredibly more intrusive levels because of modern technology which gives unprecedented power to the rulers (exactly as portrayed by Orwell in "1984") in a country where democracy is allowed to be trodden underfoot.

2. Nazi Germany made the very big mistake of alienating other countries: German armies conquered well over half the countries of Europe and were well on their way to conquering the other half, and finally of course it made the mistake of attacking even its own sole temporary ally in Europe: the Soviet Union. If Germany had not made these mistakes, the world would have remained effectively indifferent to what happened inside Germany, and Nazi Germany could well have been one of the most rich, powerful and feared countries in the world to this day. The present Indian government has not made these mistakes.

Hence, I have no reason to believe that a BJP-ruled India will face the same fate as Nazi Germany. But that does not make the situation or the future any the less frightening for the sane Indian citizen.

 

The only point I want to make is: do not use "economic development" (and worse, "a strong leader") to justify the trampling underfoot of democratic norms − or, for that matter, to deny justice and equality to Hindus and Indian Culture. I repeat again what I wrote at the beginning of this article:

Today there are three things necessary for our country:

1. Protection and Preservation of our Indian culture and identity (including our flora, fauna, ecology and natural environment) from its enemies, and justice and equality for Hindus and every aspect of Indian culture: call this Hindutva.

2. Economic and Social development and progress with justice for all.

3. An atmosphere of Democratic freedom where every genuine citizen can live in an India where "the mind is without fear and the head is held high".

All three are equally important. I have never stressed on this third point in my writings. But today I felt it necessary to do so. As everything written by me, it is written from the heart, and if it earns me the hatred of anyone, it cannot be helped. I would prefer to have people like what I write, but if the options are to either write what I truly believe and earn people's hatred or to write what I don't really believe and earn people's approval, I would prefer the former. 

 

Appendix Added 31/3/2024

Just now the following article appeared in the "Recommended by Pocket" section which appears when one enters google search. This article (I have no idea at all about the political affinities or agenda of the writer himself, but basically truth knows no political affiliations) puts the whole story in a nutshell:

ttps://thediplomat.com/2024/03/india-the-stepmother-of-democracy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-intl

 

Appendix Added 31/3/2024 4.20 pm:

Someone sent me this tweet by someone in response to this article:

Let me say very loudly and clearly: this reaction from a bhakt makes me really proud of myself. That my article lowers his respect for me is a relief: I would have been really ashamed of myself if his respect for me had not been lowered by my article, because it would have opened up the possibility that bhakts have a modicum of honesty and self-respect. His unspoken but very clearly implied defence of all the crooks and scamsters, whom the BJP was castigating all these years but who have suddenly become saints and white knights in the opinion of the BJP and its bhakts and have now become top leaders and election candidates of the BJP (I will only name a few pertaining to my own city and state: Narayan Rane, Chhagan Bhujbal, Ajit Pawar, Kripa Shankar Singh etc. etc.) is the worst and ugliest part of his tweet. He didn't defend them? Well his defence of them is exactly as clear as my defence of Kejriwal (and other politicians still in the opposition). 

 

Appendix Added 5/4/2024:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyJd111Ym7U