Depoliticise rural economy

By J.D. Sethi

It is good that the prime minister is taking an early opportunity to arrange a meeting with state chief ministers. Though the declared object of the conference is to discuss the problem of rising prices, some other questions too are likely to come up. Dr. Manmohan Singh himself told a delegation of the all-India panchayat parishad that he would like to discuss with the chief ministers ways and means to strengthen panchayat institutions.

Closely allied to this is a whole range of other problems, such as development of agro-based and cottage industries, improved agricultural practices, location of labour-intensive, small-scale industrial units in the countryside and so on - all designed to give a powerful thrust to the rural economy.

On all these matters, the prime minister is likely to find almost unanimous agreement among the chief ministers. The supremacy of rural ideals - a firmly professed belief in the pristine virtues of the villager in contrast to the almost axiomatic turpitude of the city-dweller - is part of the historically sanctified doctrines, not to say mythology, of the freedom movement. These beliefs are accepted without question as certain words like communism, capitalism, freedom, democracy which, as W.H. Auden once said, "have ceased to be words the meaning of which can be inquired into and discussed and have become merely right or wrong noises to which the response is as involuntary as a knee-reflex". But a careful inquiry into what precisely these beliefs amount to is likely to lead to some startling results.

For such an inquiry may reveal that while it is easy enough to find answers to all the questions that may arise, the difficulty lies in finding questions to the answers. For over 43- years now, ever since the Balwantrai Mehta committee produced its report on community development, there has been a steady stream of working papers, memoranda, proceedings of conferences - an enormous mass of explanatory material on the development of panchayati raj. There is a readymade and readily available answer to every possible question that may arise. But which is the right question?

The reason why it is difficult to discover this is that it really forms part of a much bigger question. One of the inescapable realities of the Indian political situation is that the national leadership and the leadership in the stages operate at two different levels which sometimes come into conflict. The national leaders my strongly deprecate appeals to sectional, regional or linguistic interests such as those involved in controversies over inter-state boundaries, allocation of water and power resources, location of industrial plants and so on. But local leaders seeking to win or retain power find it necessary to appeal to such parochial sentiments.

One of the most percipient observers of the Indian scene, Prof. Myron Weiner, has explained the situation in terms of an analogy borrowed from economics. The producer studies the market to find out what commodities will yield the maximum return. The politician studies his market to find out which among the commodities at his disposal (in the shape of appeals, promises or mere slogans) will bring in the highest dividends in the shortest time.

The problem which has often baffled the national leadership is that of devising remedies to cope with the resulting range of sectional demands without reducing central economic planning to a farce.

Prof. Weiner has discussed several ways of dealing with this situation. But none of the suggested remedies, unfortunately, will be found workable in certain situations. One method he proposes is to reduce the role of government in settling regional or sectional disputes. This can be done in certain cases such as river water disputes which can be referred to a tribunal. But his suggestion that labour-management disputes can be allowed to be fought out without government intervention (so long as they do not disturb public order) until each side finds its own level and both reach some sort of settlement is of limited value. What happens if the government itself, as is often the case, happens to be the management?

Yet another alternative is to withdraw certain controversial issues from the political arena altogether and convert them into matters for purely administrative action. This is not as easy as it sounds. Investment location decisions, as Prof. Weiner himself admits, cannot be isolated from political considerations, as they may affect the entire nation. There is also the question whether such matters can be decided on purely economic considerations without taking into account other factors such as correction of regional imbalances and so on.

It is in this context that the question of strengthening panchayat institutions has to be considered. Prof. Weiner suggests that the Government can opt out of this field of activity by giving more power to such institutions. This indeed would be very desirable if these bodies had developed as they were meant to, namely, as self-governing institutions at the grass roots, where they would be in a position to help forward the growth of the village community in all aspects of its economic and social life. But as events have turned out, they too have been sucked into the orbit of the party system and have become merely cockpits of party feuds and rivalries.

It follows, therefore, that an improvement in the quality of life at the panchayat level cannot be separated from the quality of life in the political system as a whole. An improvement in this can come about only if there is what Prof. Weiner, borrowing a phrase from Mr. Walter Lippmann, describes as the development of a "public philosophy". This means that "organised groups must learn to limit their demands by an awareness of what is possible. They must learn to consider the effect of their demands upon others. And they must make demands within the rules of a democratic system".

It is no disparagement of this approach to say that the Gandhian way represents a complete contrast to it, and is in some degree opposed to it. The generation which knew Gandhiji, read his writings or heard him speak is fast fading away. To most people today, Gandhism is largely a matter of white caps and spinning wheels or, more regrettably, a certain simplicity - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, a certain eccentricity - of attire, for the simplicity is only in attire and not in anything else. It is not inconsistent with a sumptuous style of living. To the more thoughtful, however, the term also conveys a sense of renunciation or self-denial. This, of course, is an important part of the Gandhian creed but, in my view, it is not an essential part.

To my mind, the essence of the Gandhian creed is a philosophy of self-reliance and self-help, summed up by Gandhiji himself in his direct, down-to-earth way in two words: constructive programme.

He even devised a system of education which was meant to be self-financing. In this sense, the Gandhian creed is opposed to Mr. Walter Lippmann's concept of a public philosophy, because the latter is principally concerned with a sharing of hand-outs from the public exchequer. No doubt a fair, just and equitable system but dependent nonetheless on something given from outside and therefore on something to be demanded or fought for.

The Gandhian way opts out of this competition as far as is practicable. It places the maximum reliance on locally available manual skills and locally available materials to build dwelling places and meeting halls, to construct roads and dig wells, provide for drainage and sewerage and to look after environmental hygiene; in short, to set up a whole township, with its own corporate life, cluster of industries and creative activities. The relief to the exchequer will be very considerable and also to some extent, it may be hoped, the gain in the tone of public life.

Could not a start be made with this, as was done with regard to the so-called green revolution, with pilot projects in a few selected areas, with a few selected men? The results, on however small a scale, will be worthwhile as long as it is not turned into a mere exercise in showmanship. INAV