Retributions  

One of the constant themes of public debate in India is to link the post 1991 reforms to problems faced by the Indian society. According to this intellectually lazy line of thinking, capitalism is responsible for all of India’s social and economic challenges. That despite reforms, the Indian economy remains highly regulated–India can hardly be described as a free economy–is of no concern to such pundits. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the editorial in the latest issue of Economic and Political Weekly of India blames capitalism for Raj Thackeray’s vandalism in Mumbai.

The first issue relates to the tensions thrown up by the limitations inherent in uncontrolled and unregulated market-led development. Most of our cities are increasingly taking up a very complex social character, mainly due to the dark lanes of underdevelopment that the path of reckless capitalism seems to produce. The failure of naked market-led development is twofold. On the one hand, the failure pertains to the inability of a majority of residents to live a decent life in the cities. Most cities are sitting on a volcano of bad failure pertains to the inability of a majority of residents to live a decent life in the cities. Most cities are sitting on a volcano of bad amenities and an unsympathetic bureaucracy. This keeps multi- unemployed youth with irritable sensibilities. On the other hand, capitalism has also failed to correct regional imbalances. These imbalances – between the advanced and backward states and be tween town and country – keep pushing people from the back- ward regions towards the mirages of opportunity. Mumbai provides one such mirage and therefore becomes a theatre of tension and spurious claims of ownership. The outbursts, such as those articulated by Raj Thackeray, are symptomatic of this situation. Of course, Raj Thackeray would not want to articulate genuine concerns about the limitations of the strategy of capitalist development

[link]

The description of Indian economy as ”uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism” is laughable indeed. In fact, urban development remains tightly regulated and it is the failure of the state which has led to poor civic facilities, abnormally high land prices and the consequent proliferation of slums. The state has belatedly acknowledged this by repealing the Urban Land Ceiling Act and by reluctantly opening housing to private investment. However, due to the perverse belief that market cannot provide solutions to housing needs of urban poor, it is the rich which have benefited most from these policy initiatives.

But even for argument’s sake if it is conceded tat India is a ”perfect” free economy, how does the EPW analysis account for the shenanigans of the Shiv Sena for the last 30-40 years? The very founding of this party was a reaction to outsiders (South Indians) allegedly taking over Mumbai and destroying its Marathi character. Raj is merely playing the game his uncles has perfected over a life time of politics of hatred. How does capitalism explain this continuing harping on the ‘’son of the soil”?

Capitalism has definitely sharpened the intra-state divisions. However, rather than blaming free markets for it, its root must be traced to the administrative and political weakness of the poorer state. Unless the contention is that equality of poverty is superior to the inequality of uneven development, the argument falls flat on its face. It would be wise to remember that even before the economic reforms, Mumbai was the financial capital of India which attracted migrants from all over the country. In fact, there is little data to suggest that the migration has increased post-1991 reforms; it merely seems to have reached a critical mass which ignited battles of identity.

Migration is not only the inalienable right of every India but as Atanu Dey has repeatedly and forcefully argued, it is the only answer to the horrors of rural poverty. To dismiss Mumbai which has provided opportunities as ”mirage” merely affirms the oft-repeated claim of many of India’s intelligentsia that curbing rural migration would actually better the condition of India’s villagers. It seeks to perpetuate a system which has failed the rural poor.

E.P.W like everyone else is entitled to its opinions. However, to see a journal with scholarly pretensions ride roughshod over reason in pursuit of an ideological mirage is disappointing indeed.