Two Visions for India’s Future

A controversial land reform bill, proposed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is now snaking its way through India’s Parliament. In an economy as tied up by bureaucracy and legalistic red tape as India’s, any reform would be beneficial. Many have predicted a high rate of growth for India during the next decade, with the caveat that reforms are necessary.

Land reform would entail making it easier for the government and industries to acquire land for industrial and infrastructure projects, especially in rural areas. Current laws make the acquisition and consolidation of land difficult, while stipulating hefty compensation for farmers. There is relatively broad and vocal support for maintenance of the status quo from many of India’s politicians and social activists.

The farmer and rural life are idealized even as India develops. This current influences popular opposition to changes in Indian laws that affect farmers. Those who oppose the changes do so because they know India’s future and sense of self will evolve in a different direction if it fully industrializes and harnesses its vast rural population.

Supporters of land reform and the extension of India’s industrial base into rural area often respond that their opponents want farmers to be farmers forever, and their children, and their children’s children, and so on. In some cases, opponents to land reform specifically desire that India remain an agrarian state, advocating a sort of reverse modernization theory. This belief springs from a conviction that India’s villages have something to offer that is more important that economic strength and development.

The intellectual roots of this viewpoint in modern India go back to Mahatma Gandhi himself. Gandhi, who felt that the true India was found only in its villages, said: “I would say that if the village perishes India will perish too. India will be no more India. Her own mission in the world will get lost. The revival of the village is possible only when it is no more exploited. Industrialization on a mass scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villagers as the problems of competition and marketing come in. Therefore we have to concentrate on the village being self-contained, manufacturing mainly for use.”

While the Indian government after independence undertook various industrial schemes at many levels, multiple governments did as much as they could to preserve the idealized character of rural India and the rural Indian village. But in addition to retarding India’s economic development, the continued idealization of the traditional village led to the persistence of many of the ills of India’s society, rather than a spiritual renewal. Patriarchy, religious violence, casteism, domestic violence, superstition, disease, and other ills have persisted in India in part due to their prevalence in rural areas.

The father of the Indian Constitution B.R. Ambedkar differed from Gandhi, famously stating: “I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am therefore surprised that those who condemn Provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village. What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?”

Although the village seems idyllic, it represents a mode of life that is incompatible – socially and economically – with modern societies. The benefits of modern technological and social ideas cannot simply be conferred upon villagers through education without also changing the very conditions that make its ills possible. And given the exposure of India’s masses to new social and economic ideas, it is hard to believe that India’s people will decide to embrace the traditional village lifestyle over progress. Though many individual farming families may continue to push for traditional land rights, they do so because they wish to maintain their estates not because of a fundamental belief in perpetuating the village lifestyle.

The mantra animating all sides of the political spectrum in India is “development.” It was on the promise of development that the current government came to power. To commit to a vision of development is to foreswear, ideologically, some of the key tenets of Gandhi and India’s first five decades. The present Indian government promised development, and development is the mood of the Indian nation at the moment, with other parties also adopting platforms that emphasize development. And development – along the lines of other industrialized or industrializing Asian countries like China and Japan – is only possible if traditional economic and social systems evolve and make way for modernization. Ultimately, this requires creating conditions that will favor industry to the possible detriment of agriculture.

India, like many other countries before it, must industrialize and develop if it wishes to be a strong and respected power. This inevitably means giving up a part of what makes it India. Gone will be many of the traditions and customs that make it unique, as well as social arrangements like large joint families and the role of women primarily as homemakers. But at the same time, new ideas and cultural elements will develop as India’s social and economic fabric change due to the influence of modern economic opportunities. For the vision of a developed India to triumph, old idealizations must first be laid to rest.