I have heard India being described variously as 1) a functioning anarchy; 2) a vast country which lives within one time zone and several centuries; 3) many ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse nations cobbled together to form one political entity; 4) a land of breathtaking contradictions where super rich lotus eaters live cheek by jowl with the abysmally poor .. etc. All true. Also true is the fact that India has come of age in the twenty first century in a big flashy way although it is still dogged by many new and ancient debilitating problems.
In an impressive article, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek describes the rapid rise of India as an economic force to reckon with. China the other Asian giant on the rise, is a totalitarian state where progress is driven from the "top down" by government fiat. According to Zakaria, within India's flawed but vibrant democracy, success comes from the "bottom up inspite of the government" and that he argues, makes India a more attractive and stable global presence.
"March 6, 2006 issue - Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006....
And everyone now is in India—most significantly, of course, George W. Bush, who will arrive there on March 1. Jacques Chirac was there two weeks ago. (So was Bill Clinton, who can't stop returning to the country.) Two weeks before that it was Saudi Arabia's newly crowned monarch, King Abdullah. The week after Bush leaves, Australian Prime Minister John Howard arrives. And that's all in six weeks. The world—and particularly the United States—is courting India as it never has before. Fascinated by the new growth story, perhaps wary of Asia's Chinese superpower, searching to hedge some bets, the world has woken up to India's potential. But does it really know this complex, diverse country? Just as important, does India know what it wants of the world?
While China's rise is already here and palpable—it has grown at almost 10 percent since 1980—India's is still more a tale of the future, but a future that is coming into sharp focus. A much-cited 2003 study by Goldman Sachs projects that over the next 50 years, India will be the fastest-growing of the world's major economies (largely because its work force will not age as fast as the others). The report calculates that in 10 years India's economy will be larger than Italy's and in 15 years will have overtaken Britain's. By 2040 it will boast the world's third largest economy. By 2050 it will be five times the size of Japan's and its per capita income will have risen to 35 times its current level. Predictions like these are a treacherous business, though it's worth noting that India's current growth rate is actually higher than the study assumed..."
George Bush is currently in India where he has finalized a historic nuclear deal with India (awaiting approval by US Congress). Bush considers Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a friend and sees India as a useful democratic friend, ally and fellow sufferer in the war against global terrorism. With so much in common, shouldn't the bilateral relations between India and the US be smooth sailing? Not necessarily, says Indian political analyst, Amulya Ganguly. India is a new breed of ally, the likes of which the US has not encountered before. All that India was and has become, has little to do with American patronage. It was never an arch enemy nor a bosom buddy. The Indo-US relations have mostly been "normal", with a prickly undertone. Moreover, is the US comfortable with the notion of a non-European, militarily self sufficient, huge democracy becoming a major economic power? Thomas Friedman's enthusiasm notwithstanding, many in the US may be secretly troubled by India's rise as a global power. It has been reported that Cheney, during his fateful trip to the Armstrong ranch, before he shot his friend, is said to have wearily discussed over lunch what to do with the problem of "N. Korea, Iran, China and India!" (No wonder he was jittery during the quail hunt). Ganguly wonders:
"US President George W Bush's reference to the need for patience in the negotiations with India on the nuclear deal between the two countries suggests that America is waking up to the prerequisites of dealing with a vibrant democracy -- an unusual experience for Washington.Till now, the US has dealt either with adversaries challenging its suspected hegemonic ambitions - the former Soviet Union, Red China and Iran - or with two types of allies.
The first type - or the one Washington may have preferred - comprised virtual client states like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq during its war with Iran, and other countries mainly in the Middle East..... Among the other allies of America, which were not as subservient as the Arab countries, were the Europeans nations.
The US also probably sees India as a military counter to China, which may be the reason why it acquiesced in New Delhi's nuclear capability. The US knows, therefore, that it cannot allow its relations with India to languish, let alone deteriorate. On the other hand, India may be in no hurry, as its long experience during the non-aligned period has shown that it could survive and even prosper in semi-isolation..."
After my recent trip to India, I considered recording some observations on how the country of my birth has changed in the last twenty five years since I left. A few readers too asked me to write about my trip. But I think that is unnecessary. There is currently a whole lot of coverage on India to coincide with Bush's first presidential visit. Those who are interested, should read Fareed Zakaria's article (all six pages of it) to which I have linked at the beginning of this post. Better still, please also read other pieces about India in the current issues of most major newspapers and periodicals. I will however mention a few trivial tid-bits that Zakaria has not covered in his thoroughly researched, fact filled essay.
India's overall mood is upbeat. Pollution on India's crazy, traffic choked streets has been dramatically reduced by the introduction of natural gas fuel (propane, instead of gasoline and diesel) in public transportation like city buses, auto-rickshaws and many taxi cabs. India is not just "stealing" jobs due to outsourcing by US companies. The prosperous Indian middle class buys a whole lot of US products including American cars. With a booming economy, air travel within India has become popular and affordable. Many new and competitive airlines are entering the domestic aviation business. There is a shortage of pilots. A number of out of work pilots laid off by the ailing airlines industry in the US and Britain now find employment in India. Delhi has a new and impressive subway system which has benefited Delhiites - especially the students of Delhi University. Indian movie stars now dress like "normal" people. What used to be page three gossip about the rich and the famous, is now printed on the front page of major Indian newspapers making them look like frivolous tabloids. Cram schools offering after-school tuition for passing fiercely competitive entrance exams to prestigious colleges and universities is a rapidly proliferating and remunerative business. Competing in national and international beauty contests is a serious vocation of attractive young Indian women. Sports like football (soccer) and field hockey which were popular when I was growing up, languish due to neglect. The name of the game is cricket. Cricket players are as wealthy, glamorous and popular as movie stars. Many American fast food chains operate in Indian cities and the food is often "adjusted" for the local palate. And McDonalds in India makes free home deliveries, employing young drivers on red scooters with red carrier boxes on the pillion seat which read "Mc Delivery".
Just wish to add a comment to your description of India today: One cannot miss the vibrant dynamism of the current "cultural scene" so visible now i.e. the focus on the diversity of folk and the erstwhile marginilized cultural practices such as Sufi, Bhakti, Baul, vachanas, as also the centre-staging of the Dalit and tribal voices, the mainstreaming of women's issues and literature as well as the respectability offered today to the rich oral traditions. I believe all this is bound to lead to the making of a healthy and confident composite culture which had detracked through both, colonial exoticisation of classical cultural expression as well as an aggressive Orientalism that was followed by saffron politics, not to mention the constantly looming threat of American cultural domination.
Posted by: Sukrita Paul Kumar | March 03, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Sukrita:
Thanks for the update. The cultural scene (music, theater, art) is one aspect of India that I am really out of touch with. Books and movies one can stay abreast of from afar. But the art forms that are taking place "on the ground", are less accessible. I need to visit Delhi / India for a longer duration than a week or ten days at a time, to be able to sample them.
I am still waiting for the young Indian artist Richa Arora to e-mail me the photos of her paintings so that I can put them up here.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | March 04, 2006 at 09:41 AM
Hi,
Sensing such opportunities, we created tripyogi.com, India;s travel search engine. We don't have fares yet, but we show all possible routes between any two cities in India.
-Radha.
Posted by: Radha | April 09, 2006 at 03:52 PM