One Billion People Can't Be Wrong

Nation Building

By Tanya Sehgal

Click to see full size
illustration by Hilary Falb
Image

His Excellency K. Natwar Singh, India's Minister of External Affairs, addressed a packed Sayles Hall on Friday and presented a compelling case in his aptly titled lecture, "The Argument for India." The newly established Brown-India fund was inaugurated with Singh's visit to Brown and his speech was his only major public address during his stay in the States. Meanwhile his colleague, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, spoke at Yale on the subject of US-India Economic Relations last Thursday, and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visited New York and addressed the UN General Assembly on the 15th of September. Though it is perhaps coincidental that three top Indian officials spoke at high profile institutions within two weeks of each other, it is more likely a coordinated attempt to present the carefully crafted argument of why India matters.

...Make For The World's Largest Democracy...

Officials in both the United States and India love talking about their budding love affair, in large part because it means they get to repeat their favorite line back and forth to each other: India and the United States will be great friends because we are the world's largest and oldest democracies. India has over a billion people and a 600 million strong electorate; K. Natwar Singh was right when he said, "The fact that Indian democracy works is a political miracle." There is no historical precedent of a nation-state that was able to adhere to the democratic process with such a massive population. And the United States of America is in fact the oldest democracy, but while the slogan is quite catchy, it does not really mean all that much.

The argument continues to say, however, that terrorism can be added to the two nations' list of shared concerns. Singh notes, "Democracy and secularism.have provided effective defenses against terrorism unleashed by ideologies of intolerance and fundamentalism. India's battle in that regard predates 9/11 and no country has paid a higher price to safeguard its core democratic beliefs." The warrant for this superlative claim is another catchy fact—despite the fact that India has the second highest population of Muslims in the world, al-Qaeda has been unable to recruit even one single Indian into its terrorist network. While that is undoubtedly something for a nation to be proud of, India's recent history is rife with communal violence. vvCaste and religious divisions are often cexploding into bloody conflict, and a good example of this can be seen when the Babri Majid was burned down by Hindu zealots in 1992 who claimed that that the mosque stood on the birthplace of a Hindu God. Fundamentalism has had a large presence in India during the tenure of Bharatiya Janvata Party and to deny the presence of these countervailing forces would be misleading. India's commitment to democracy may be laudable, but when Singh says, ".all sections of India believed that their grievances can be addressed through the democratic process. Admittedly we have had communal violence where narrower identities have disrupted the social fabric. But in the long run, all communities understand that the Indian state does not discriminate," he merely glosses over the "disruptions" without substantiating his claim that all Indians buy into a seamless democracy.

And A Really Big Market...

K. Natwar Singh continued his argument by explaining how significant the evolution of the Indian economy has been. The reforms instituted by former Finance Minister and current Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in 1991 have slowly been opening Indian markets to foreign trade. These changes ushered in the highest growth rate (almost eight percent) that India has seen in years. Moreover, Singh notes, India boasts a wealth of highly skilled professionals who have made outsourcing a part of our daily conversation. The most remarkable part of its economic transformation is that India has managed to do what many other nations find impossible - be mindful of social welfare while embracing capitalism. Singh says that as a result of its strong democracy, India is quite "conscious of the fact that globalization has to have a human face."

India's multi-party parliamentary democracy means that the ruling party is actually a coalition of sometimes as many as 15 different parties. For the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance currently in power, this often means paying close attention to the demands of the Communist Parties of India that comprise a large chunk of the UPA's base. Their demands serve as a check to ensure that the economic reforms do not spiral out of control; however, His Excellency K. Natwar Singh was quick to admit that though India has achieved many social feats (for example, increasing the literacy rate from about 26 percent during colonialism to approximately 70 percent today), the country has not done as well as it could have.

It must be remembered, though, that Indian diplomats and officials continuously emphasize the growth rate and lack of barriers because they are desperately working to dismantle the protectionist image the country had for nearly 40 years. Singh said, "It is our hope that having placed our faith in an open economy, the world would respond reciprocally, believing that there is much riding on our success." India paints such a rosy economic and social forecast at least in part because it is looking to attract more Foreign Direct Investment. The Yale Daily News quoted Finance Minister P. Chidambaram as saying, "Producing goods and services in India makes goods and services cheaper in the US." Taxes, he added, are lower in the US because of outsourcing. Though India certainly does not rely on outsourcing to fuel its economy, the phenomenon allows India to support its knowledge-based economy and keep the highly skilled labor force working until India's economic development allows it to employ these workers itself.

Why India Should Be Part Of The Un Security Council

The argument is an interesting one; it is made by three different dignitaries in three different locations, and it has a simple message. India has a lot of people who represent many different cultures and religions and yet the country manages to make democracy work. Singh emphatically told the audience that India has a Sikh Prime Minister, a Muslim President, and a Christian as the head of the ruling coalition and the people accept this arrangement. True, India is also infamous for extreme poverty and appalling social conditions—but, according to its dignitaries, that, too, is changing. The economy is open and India has embraced modernity (if modernity means capitalism) and there is hope that soon fewer people will be poor. Its leaders also point out that, India also has time and resources to contribute to bettering the global order. Singh declared that, "We are now in the forefront of fashioning responses to trans-national challenges as well in areas like health, terrorism and WMD proliferation." India recently pledged $5 million to help with the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. But why all the fuss to establish how outstanding the Indian nation-state is?

Because of an opening on the UN Security Council. The Prime Minister made his second visit to the USA in three months so that he could address the United Nations general assembly. Singh's speech wound down with a discussion of this very issue, "In putting forward our candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council, we are confident that the world will take into account our international contribution as well as our strong democratic credentials." When he was further interrogated about this point in the question and answer session, Singh responded by suggesting that the United Nations could be well served with numerous changes. He mentioned abolishing the veto privilege and working on consensus building instead (India sure did internalize those democratic values), and expanding the Security Council to include new "major" players. And there's the point still open to argument—whether or not India has enough juice to make it a major player.

When he was further questioned about this point in the question and answer session, Singh responded by suggesting that the United Nations could be well served with numerous changes. He mentioned abolishing the veto privilege and working on consensus building instead, and expanding the Security Council to include new "major" players. Singh is, in essence, arguing against antiquated notions of India in an attempt to establish his country as a formidable player in the global arena, and he and his colleagues seem to think the UN seat fundamental to that goal.

Tanya Sehgal B'06 saw a call center once and feels OK saying that it's not really a sweatshop.

Back to Top

the college hill independent

http://www.theindy.com