Quality of graduates from engineering and management colleges is so poor many remain unemployable. Our education system—it is a mess.
In literacy, India is 183 among 214 countries—below many African countries. Reports The Economic Times of 18 January 2013: “The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER 2012) by NGO Pratham shows that the number of Class V students who could not read a Class II level text or solve a simple arithmetic problem has increased. In 2010, 46.3% of kids in this category failed to make the cut and this shot up to 51.8% in 2011 and 53.2% in 2012...In 2010, 29.1% children in Class V could not solve a two-digit subtraction problem without seeking help. This proportion increased to 39% in 2011 and 46.5% in 2012.”
The hitherto Dynasty-driven Nehruvian-socialistic-populist-babudom-dominated dynacratic India rarely disappoints in scoring the top grade—when it comes to the negatives. With the change of guard and exit of the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty the things are likely to improve.
Blunder–58 :
Socialistic-Bureaucratic Nightmare
Nehru uncritically accepted socialism. It is strange that while Nehru’s books approvingly talk of Marxism and socialism, there is no comparative analysis by him of much more proven competing economic thoughts. It was as if Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, JS Mill, John Maynard Keynes and others did not exist for Nehru. Nor did he care to read Milton Friedman (1912–2006) or Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992).
“To cure the British disease with socialism was like
trying to cure leukemia with leeches.”
—Margaret Thatcher
Marxists call their socialism scientific socialism, as if the self-assigned, self-adulatory adjective scientific is sufficient to testify to it being scientific—correct; however preposterous it might be from a genuine scientific angle, where the litmus test is the real practical proof. Mere dialectics of self-serving arguments and logic does not result in truth! Marxism and socialism as a science or as an alternate economic thought for a nation to build on has miserably failed—it has globally been proven wrong both in theory and in practice.
Those who do not genuinely understand science or scientific-methods are taken-in by mere allusion to something as scientific. Many became Marxists because being so implied being scientific-spirited, rational, progressive, pro-poor intellectual, aligned to the forces of history! Rather than being aligned to the forces of history or being on the right side of it, to the dismay of the Marxists, the unfolding history proved them to be on the wrong side; and their “science”—“scientific” socialism—turned out to be an alchemy!
The capitalist economic thought, the capitalist societies and the associated democratic system themselves evolved and adapted since the time of Marx in such a way that they not only brought unprecedented prosperity to the concerned nations, they also significantly uplifted the status of the masses—falsifying, in the process, many of the foundations and assumptions of Marx.
In science, society, economics and indeed all disciplines knowledge evolves, concepts change, new theories replace old ones in the light of new experiments, experiences and knowledge gained. To be scientific is to keep an open mind on things, to be willing to change, to be ready to jettison the old in the light of new evidence, and to go by actual practical results.
“Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty. Such countries develop ‘extractive’ institutions that ‘keep poor countries poor’.”
—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson,
‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’
Nehru was the founder of the “extractive institutions” .
There is not a single example of a country which prospered or whose poor were better off under communism or socialism. The democratic countries like the UK which were going downhill with their socialistic policies did course correction under Thatcher and prospered. Extrapolating the time it took Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan to become first-world countries by adopting competitive capitalism, and the time it took West Germany and Japan to rise from the ashes of the Second World War by adopting capitalist economy, it seems reasonable that India would have been a prosperous, first-rate, first-world country by 1980 had it too adopted competitive capitalism and befriended the West.
“A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart;
an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.”
—David Lloyd George
Unfortunately for the crores of starving Indians and millions of others who had great hopes for themselves, their families and the nation after independence, Nehru guided India into a poverty-and-misery-perpetuating socialistic-bureaucratic black-hole.
His descendants, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, by doing much more of the same, made the situation worse. UPA-I and II, by part reverting to the Nehru-Indira disastrous ways, reversed the Narsimha Rao–Vajpayee upward trend.
“He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of Socialism, but he did not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will invigorate your economy.”
— Chester Bowles
Sardar Patel, Rajagopalachari and Rajendra Prasad were opposed to socialism. If only they had led India after Independence, rather than Nehru, India would have been a prosperous first-world country long ago, and it would hopefully have been saved from the debilitating feudal dynacracy (dynastic democracy) founded by Nehru, that is at the root of all miseries.
“Mr Jawaharlal Nehru returned from Cambridge with notions of how an all-governing interventionist state can force people into happiness and prosperity through socialism... He sticks to this bias in spite of the demonstration of world experience against it... I hate the present folly and arrogance as much as I hated the foreign arrogance of those [British] days.”
— C Rajagopalachari (Rajaji)
Nehru just went by what was popular and fashionable among the upper classes in Britain, without any deep study of economics (despite many years in jail where he had all the time in the world, and access to books), or even a reasonable or understanding of its basics, although economics is a most vital subject for any political leader.
Blunder–59:
Pathetic India vs. Other Countries
India, which was far better placed with respect to many countries in Southeast Asia when Nehru took over the charge of India, was left far, far behind all of them by the end of the Nehru's tenure. Nehru miserably failed to do justice to India’s potential.
Let’s take a concrete comparative example. After its separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore was left as an independent country that was not only poor and backward and with meagre defensive capabilities, it had NO natural resources—not even water! It had to import water from Malaysia. Lee Kuan Yew, often referred to by his initials as LKY, who became its Prime Minister, lead it through its traumatic separation. Thanks to his enlightened grasp on “what makes a nation strong and prosperous”, sound and far-sighted diplomacy and foreign policy, innovative ideas, wise strategy and unmatched competence in governance, he lifted Singapore from a poor, backward, “Third World” nation in 1965 to a "First World" Asian Tiger by 1980—in mere 15 years!
In comparison, what did India achieve during the 17 years of Nehru rule? India had tremendous natural and water resources and the significant colonial legacy of defence, military, trained bureaucracy, industries and infrastructure, particularly railways. However, at the end of Nehru’s 17-year rule India remained a poor, third-world country of starving millions begging the world for food and aid.
LKY managed to convert barren Singapore, with no water resources, into a clean, beautiful, green, garden nation. And, what has India done after independence? Converted India into a gigantic garbage bin!
Blunder–60 :
Nehruvian (and NOT ‘Hindu’) Rate of Growth
While the developing countries of SE-Asi
a, which had been far behind India in 1947, raced ahead at over 9% growth and became highly prosperous, with infra-structure rivalling western countries, India plodded along at what was derisively referred to as the ‘Hindu rate of growth’ of just 3%, and became a basket-case, begging aid and food from all.
However, the term "Hindu rate of growth" is highly inappropriate and unfair, besides being derogatory. Let us examine why?
One, the "Nehruvian rate of growth". The low rate of growth was thanks to Nehru-Indira-Rajiv’s policies. If rather than the “Hindu rate of growth” it was called the "Nehruvian rate of growth" or "Nehruvian socialistic rate of growth" or “NIDP [Nehru-Indira-Dynasty policies] rate of growth", one would have no quarrel.
Two, the “Colonial rate of growth”. The rate of growth during the pre-independence period, the colonial period, was even less! In fact, it had even turned negative during several long periods!! Why was the rate of growth then not called the “Colonial rate of growth” or the “Christian rate of growth” in a pejorative sense?
As per an estimate by Angus Maddison, a Cambridge University historian, “India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952.”
Hindu-India had been highly prosperous in the past, thanks to its massive “Hindu rate of growth”, which is why first the countries to the northwest of India, and then the Western countries invaded it. Until the rise of the West, India was possibly the richest country in the world, which is why it presented an irresistible target for the ravaging Mongols and their descendents, and then the West. Why then was the term "Hindu rate of growth" not used in an adulatory sense?
Three, how do you explain the recent growth rate of over 9%? The same India, after only part junking of the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv socialistic policies, reached a growth rate of over 9%! Junk more of the Nehru-Indira socialistic policies, and the growth rate will rise to double-digits.
Four, absurdity of religious-cultural connotation. Many Islamic countries prior to the world demand and discovery of oil were very poor. Was their growth rate called the “Islamic rate of growth”? The growth rate during the dark ages of Europe was static or negative, when during the same period India was immensely rich and progressive. Was it ever called the “Christian rate of growth”? Sri Lanka and Myanmar have had long periods of no growth or measly growth. Were they castigated for being under the spell of the “Buddhist rate of growth”? China’s growth rate after going communist and till the end of the Mao-period was pathetic. Was it termed the “Atheistic rate of growth”? Why associate “Hindu” with a rate of economic growth unless there is an ulterior motive of deliberately showing Hinduism in bad light? Of course, many use the term unfeelingly, without being conscious of its implications.
Five, Nehru vs. Hinduism. Nehru was an agnostic, and was more English than Indian, more western than eastern, more “something else” than a Hindu, and therefore it is grossly inappropriate to name a rate of growth, which was thanks to him and his dynasty, as “Hindu”.
Six, why not “Secular” rate of growth? Nehru, Nehru-dynasty and company have raved ad nauseum on “secularism”, without ensuring it in practice. Why not credit the growth rate thanks to them as the “‘Secular’ rate of growth”?
Seven, Socialism vs. Hinduism. Hindu-India has had long tradition of free international trade and commerce, and of liberal religious and world view. Such an ethos can never accept the Big Brother denouement or the run-up to it. There is an age old Indian proverb: Raja Vyapari taya Praja Bhikhari. That is, people become beggars when government enters into business. A belief in self-reliance and an overweening socialistic state on the part of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi actually did India in, rather than something that had anything to do with Hinduism.
Eight, Socialism vs. Mahatma Gandhi and Others. Mahatma Gandhi was no socialist. Nor were the other stalwarts like Sardar Patel, Rajaji and Rajendra Prasad. All the four—Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Rajaji and Rajendra Prasad—quite unlike Nehru, could be considered as also representing the Hindu ethos, and perhaps precisely for that reason they were against socialistic claptrap of Nehru.
Nine, a camouflage. In any case, using “Hindu” as in “Hindu rate of growth” in a pejorative sense is not only insulting, it camouflages the real reasons—socialistic claptrap was never going to give you a respectable growth rate to enable you to ameliorate the lot of the poor.
But, the question arises as to why did the term “Hindu rate of growth” gain currency? Well, here are the reasons.
One. Raj Krishna. The term was reportedly coined by the economist Raj Krishna to draw attention to the embarrassing rate of growth during the Nehru-Indira period.
Two. Blame Hinduism rather than Socialism. Indian politicians and bureaucrats never wanted to admit that the fault lay with the socialistic apparatus. Why blame self? Especially, why blame something on which you have fattened yourselves?
Three. The Secularists. For certain class of intellectuals the touchstone of secularism is whether you can be abusive to Hinduism. The term “Hindu” in “Hindu rate of growth” serves that purpose.
Four. The Colonialists and the India-baiters. Said the colonial-minded: “Give power to the Hindus, and what you will get is the “Hindu rate of growth”! Had the British Raj continued, things would have been better!!”
Misgovernance
Blunder–61 :
Debilitating Babudom & Criminal-Justice System
During the Nehru era, callous, heartless and indifferent Police and Criminal-Justice System took roots; and ineffective, incompetent, self-seeking and shamelessly corrupt bureaucracy entrenched itself. Steep descent of India into a corrupt society resulted in its inability to provide justice, dignity and prosperity to the poor, and it limited economic growth.
Babudom—the IAS-IPS-IFS-IRS combine, those from the criminal-justice system, and the bureaucracy lower down—is very intimately related to socialism, poor rate of growth, continued poverty, injustice and misery. Nehru did nothing to change the babudom and make it people-oriented, service-oriented and development-oriented, they continued with their feudal class consciousness and arrogant ways, ill-suited to public service.
The pre-independence babu culture of living like a rajah, misusing power, exploiting people, becoming rich at their cost, and aping the British ways to look cultured, continued, and indeed became worse with Raj giving way to Nehru-Indira’s licence-permit-quota raj.
The Nehruvian era laid the foundations of Indian babudom that is authoritarian, arrogant, callous, unfair, heartless, ill-mannered, indifferent, incompetent, inefficient, ineffective, nepotistic, sloppy, sluggish, self-seeking and shamelessly corrupt. Bureaucracy is now Kleptocracy.
The term Indian “Administrative” “Service” is a misnomer considering the criminal absence of both “administration” and “service”. We now have babudom that indeed have very low IQ—low Integrity Quotient.
Blunder–62 :
Corruption in the “Good” Old Days
Nehru was himself personally honest money-wise. He did keep his hands clean in money matters; although he did not mind others dirtying their hands to raise funds for the Congress Party and for other purposes—what mattered was power for himself.
From the very beginning of his Prime Ministership Nehru adopted a queer and casual approach towards corruption. A resolution was passed by majority in the 1948-session of the Congress Party on the “standards of public conduct” of members, and for maintenance of high standards of conduct by the members of the state and central legislatures. Rather than appreciating and lauding the spirit of the resolution, Nehru took offense at it—as if it was meant to censure his government. He went to the inexplicable extent of threatening to tender his resignation if the resolution was not rescinded—the Party complied with his odd demand! Wonder why the Party did not stand up for its principles, and accept his resignation? It would have been a blessing in disguise!
There were many cases whe
re Nehru condoned corruption. Or, defended those accused of it. This tended to make corruption acceptable. In a way, the foundation of corruption were laid during Nehru’s time, although, unlike Manmohan Singh, Nehru had almost unlimited powers to carry through whatever he wanted.
It was a surprise that Krishna Menon[KM] was being continued as High Commissioner[HC] in London, when he deserved to be kicked out. KM had engaged in a number of shady deals for the GoI and the Defence, while in London as HC: Jeep Scandal was only one of the scandals. Nehru was informed through various channels of the financial irregularities being committed by KM, but the PM, as usual, adopted a policy of drift. Nehru subsequently made KM a Cabinet Minister despite opposition from many.
To name a few more cases, out of the many, apart from the Jeep scandal of 1948, there was Mudgal case of 1951, Mundra deals of 1957-58, Malaviya Sirajuddin scandal of 1963, Pratap Singh Kairon case of 1963. Unfortunately, as the years progressed, things became worse. Rajaji was against Nehru's License-Permit-Quota-Raj not only because it grievously hurt the economy, but also because it was a huge source of corruption. But, it went unchecked.
In the case of the Jeep Scandal, the Nehru Government had been brazen enough to announce in the Parliament that the matter be treated as closed—something unthinkable in this age of alert media and 24x7 TV News. Even in the case of Chagla Committee’s probe against TT Krishnamachari, Nehru tried to defend his minister, rather than appreciating the good job done by Chagla. When severe allegations were levelled against Kairon by the critics within the Congress itself, Nehru pooh-poohed them and resisted any enquiry—Kairon had to ultimately resign following Das Commission’s findings.
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 14