去殖民化、发展与印度崛起

INTRODUCTION The story of almost every developing country in the world today is a story of breaking free from a mother country (decolonization) and learning to expand their economic and social capacity (development). Doing so involves struggles against many foes, both internal and external. Not only must a national liberation move- ment decide how to confront a foreign power endowed with considerable resources, but it must also convince local citizens to join in and figure out what to do with those who do not. But achieving independence for some countries has proven to be the easy part. The next step involves organizing a state, establishing proper roles for the government, and finding ways to obtain and channel resources to the best targets. Decolonization began almost as soon as the first empires were established. In some ways, the collapse of the Roman Empire could be seen as the emergence of numerous new political entities. Generally we focus on modern imperialism–specifically the period of global conquest that began in the late 18th century and involved the estab- lishment of European control over Africa, Asia, and Oceania. It was these regions that, beginning in the late 1940s, were able to take advantage of the relative decline in European power after World War II to negotiate or fight their way to sovereignty for their new nation. This was done in almost every conceivable way and with broad range of outcomes. For example, as we will see, Indians were largely able to pressure the British to withdraw by means of a series of large-scale strikes, peaceful protests, and civil disobedience—known collectively as “non-violent resistance.” On the other extreme, Algerians fought house to house for six years against determined French resistance, resulting in almost a half million casualties on both sides. 15 � � � Decolonization and Development: India Rising 251 M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 251 252 CHAPTER 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising In most cases, leaders of newly elected or appointed indigenous governments negotiated their independence over a period of time, then peacefully stood side- by-side with representatives of the colonial power as European flags were lowered and local flags were raised. These new states quickly joined the United Nations as fully independent, sovereign states. During the 1960s, more than forty new states became members, raising the organization’s total membership from eighty-two to 126 (UN 2008). Some did not achieve complete independence right away or they retained special ties to the mother country. Canada, for example, achieved home rule in 1867 but was not fully sovereign until 1982. It still maintains its membership in the British Commonwealth—an economic and political organization designed to give former British colonies special privileges. Palau, administered by the United States for thirty years under UN auspices, became independent in 1978 and is now governed under a “compact of free association” with the United States, giving the United States responsibility for its national defense. As was mentioned, achieving independence and becoming a member of the UN was the easy part for some countries. Some slipped into economic and political chaos almost as soon as their new flags were raised. Belgian Congo was granted inde- pendence precipitously in 1960 in the face of an increasingly violent independence movement. Only the thinnest veneer of government was in place as the Belgians left. Congolese soldiers rose up against the few Belgian officers who had remained behind to help create an indigenous army. This prompted a Belgian re-intervention, Belgian support for a rival government in the south, and a year-long civil war followed by UN peacekeeping. Stability did not come until Mobutu Sese Seko—one of the world’s most corrupt and ruthless dictators—seized power in 1965 (Callaghy 1984). Other newly independent countries experienced precipitous economic collapses requiring emergency assistance from abroad—often from the former colonial ruler. Within two years of its independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh experienced a cat- astrophic famine, for example. But most enjoyed positive, if not sustainable, growth. Far more common was the emergence of dependent economic relations with the outside world, based on heavy reliance on a few export markets, foreign capital, and foreign technology. To address this problem of dependency, and to establish themselves as the cen- tral authority in the new state, governments across the developing world adopted state-centered economic strategies. The problem they faced was deciding what the goal should be. For some states it was merely economic independence. For others it was overall economic growth, as measured by the gross national product divided by the total population. Still others imagined an end point where all the citizens of the country would have their basic needs met and be productive members of the econ- omy. These advocated the use of UN Development Program’s “human development index” to measure development. “The HDI measures the overall achievements of a country in three basic dimensions of human development—longevity and health, education and knowledge, and a decent standard of living” (Dutt 2006, 120). A few have even gone so far as to define development as the “self-actualization” of all of their people—the achievement of a deeper and more meaningful sense of self and fulfillment. As envisioned by Amartya Sen, this is nothing less than genuine personal and societal freedom (Sen 1999; Dutt 2006, 157). M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 252 India before Independence 253 Regardless of their ultimate aim, almost every newly independent country’s government opted for increased economic independence and self-reliance. They expanded the size of the public sector, hiring large fractions of the citizenry into government jobs. They restricted foreign imports and foreign investment as a matter of national policy and directed considerable money into local industry, often nation- alizing foreign assets. One of the more extreme examples of this is the Saudi Arabian government’s decision in 1973 to buy controlling interest in Aramco, an American- owned oil company that had been operating in the country since the 1930s. Control of oil exports has generated untold wealth and power for the House of Saud. Fidel Castro seized control of American and other foreign assets in Cuba without compensation in the 1960s after his successful Communist revolution. Most govern- ments, such as Mexico, found a middle ground by permitting foreign firms to operate on condition of increased local ownership and management, as well as a require- ment to keep more profits in the country. During the 1980s, a major financial crisis prompted most developing countries to pursue public loans from Western government and the International Monetary Fund. These actors had always been skeptical of the nationalist approaches to devel- opment and instead advocated a more classically liberal approach of limited govern- ment and increased free trade and investment. They used their new leverage to push governments into a variety of policies, including selling off state-owned firms (priva- tization), reducing public spending—especially of programs designed to prop up inefficient companies, lowering barriers to foreign goods and capital, and lowering the values of their currencies so they more correctly reflect the strength of the national economy. The result has been a dramatic increase in foreign investment in the developing world, although not necessarily a dramatic increase in economic growth or public welfare. In many cases this is due to financial mismanagement and even corruption. But some advocates of the new approach, such as Joseph Stiglitz, formerly of the World Bank, have even questioned whether it will ever work, even if implemented correctly (Stiglitz 2003). The experience of India will help us better understand the dilemmas nations face as they strive for independence from a colonial master only to find they must now struggle to define their economic future. INDIA BEFORE INDEPENDENCE Indian civilization is more than 8,000 years old and has been conquered and occupied by a dozen foreign nations. As a result, Indian civilization is an amalgam of much of human civilization with a result that is nonetheless unique and distinctive (Bose & Jalal 2004, 16). Every major religion is represented, as are many of the world’s races and cultural traditions. Key influences, however, are those of the Aryans in 1500 BC, who introduced Hinduism and the caste system; the Mughals in the 1500s and 1600s, who brought Islam and strong central government; and the British in the 1700s, who brought parliamentary government and the English language, among other things. Taken together, India is uniquely positioned to interface with the modern world economy (Dutt 2006, 13). This does not mean, however, that it has always done so M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 253 254 CHAPTER 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising successfully. India has found that interacting with the outside world can be extremely painful and has therefore displayed considerable ambivalence. Although they established democratic institutions, built a nationwide network of railroads, and introduced modern technology to India, the British, who had arrived in the early 1600s and established control over most of the sub-continent of South Asia by 1800, were a mixed blessing at best. They began as traders and businessmen under the East India Company, one of the world’s first multinational corporations. As their control increased, spreading from east to west, the British Crown directed their activities more and more directly until 1858 when India was annexed as a colony after the suppression of an uprising of Indian soldiers against their British commanders (see Figure 15.1). The British took over large tracts of land to cultivate cash crops for export: indigo, cotton, jute, and opium. These cash crops generated few benefits to Indian farmers (Dutt 2006, 129). In addition, the British promoted the importation of English textiles into India under a free trade policy. Because local cottage industry in textiles could not compete with the very efficient mills in Birmingham, many Indians lost their livelihoods (Dutt 2006, 131). By the 20th century, British colonial officials had spread throughout the sub- continent, governing mostly indirectly through a network of English-speaking Indian civil servants. India had become essential to the British Empire, both politi- cally and economically, as the trade surplus between Britain and India helped com- pensate for trade deficits with the rest of the world. Likewise, during both World War I and II, the British depended on Indian soldiers to fight (Bose & Jalal 2004, 102). Figure 15.1 India During and After the British Raj Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/British_india.png M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 254 India before Independence 255 On the other hand, with these military sacrifices added to an increasingly depressed economy, conditions of local Indians were difficult—except for a brief period during World War I when the British were too distracted to maintain full control over the region. The experience of life without the British presence made their full return in the 1920s deeply resented. Beginning in 1921 under the leadership of Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, a non-violent campaign to push them out once and for all took hold (Dutt 2006, 132). Gandhi’s campaign, applying “satyagraha” (soul-force), was dramatic and ambi- tious. It consisted of unifying the Indian people through active recruitment at the local level into the Congress Party, followed by a series of boycotts, demonstrations, strikes, and other forms of civil disobedience aimed at exposing the violence inherent in the system (Sharma 1999, 67). The task was made more difficult by the lack of unifying cultural identity among Indians and the resistance of British colonial offi- cers. Muslims in particular sought to protect themselves from what they thought would be a future nation dominated by nationalistic Hindus, whereas most of those living in rural areas did not speak Hindi or English and had little concept of what a unified country would do for them. Still others were attached to traditional monar- chies that hoped to become fully independent of everyone. Ultimately, the various efforts to expand Indian influence in the central and local government failed to appease those calling for independence, and so in 1942, the British formally began the process of preparing India for the British departure. The fact that the ultimate removal of colonial rule was generally peaceful (at least so far as Indian–British relations were concerned) meant that existing political and eco- nomic institutions could carry over from one regime to the next with a minimum of disruption—something many newly independent countries did not enjoy. Further, it is interesting to note that because the British allowed Indians to participate in gover- nance in a variety of parliamentary bodies, and many of India’s elite were trained in the finest British universities, Indians were able to manage and even reform these institutions with little difficulty (Sharma 1999, 71). In addition, Nehru and Gandhi both endeavored to ensure that the new government would be secular, meaning that no one religion would have a position of privilege. The state would not support a par- ticular religion, it would not make religious affiliation a condition of appointment, it would allow members of all faiths to be free to practice and proselyte, and so forth. Conscious efforts were made to provide each religious group a sense of engagement with the new government. That the country has held together for this long is a testa- ment to the effectiveness of these early nation-building initiatives (see Figure 15.2). This said, Nehru was unable to persuade a large percentage of Muslims to stay in the country, and so at the same time as India was brought into the world, the state of Pakistan, including both modern Pakistan and Bangladesh, was also born. Shortly after independence, thousands died in the border violence between Muslims fleeing India and Hindus fleeing Pakistan. A full-scale war continued for two years. In Kashmir, a Hindu king agreed to join the state of India in spite of his kingdom being inhabited mostly by Muslims. Pakistan has claimed a right to govern the territory, with tensions flaring into full-scale war in 1965 and 1971. Pakistan has supported an ongoing rebellion against Indian forces in Kashmir since 1989. M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 255 256 CHAPTER 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising INDIA UNDER NEHRU Gandhi never held political office as a matter of choice. Rather, Nehru was India’s first Prime Minister in 1947 at the head of the Congress Party (see Table 15.1). By this point the Party had no governing program or ideology, but was by far the most inclusive and popular and was able to take credit for the country’s independence. Nehru’s goals were three-fold at the outset: (1) draft a constitution and secure pub- lic approval for it; (2) in the process, ensure that all Indians would feel included in a secular state; and (3) dramatically increase economic growth with an eye to reduc- ing poverty. His concern was to create a new state that would enjoy both political and economic stability—the goal of virtually all governments of new states. The Constitution was approved in 1949, just two years after independence, and established a federal government with considerable powers reserved to the central government, as well as a bicameral legislature and independent judiciary including a constitutional court to resolve disputes over interpretation of the new document. Figure 15.2 Indian Linguistic Diversity M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 256 India under Nehru 257 English was adopted as the official language of the country on the grounds that doing so did not privilege any of the local or native languages. It was also spoken by the country’s educated elite who were leading the country. The document itself provided important freedoms to the Indian people, includ- ing equal rights, freedom from exploitation, freedom of religion, freedom of culture and education, and a ban on “untouchability.” This last item meant that members of the lowest caste who were shunned and relegated to the most degrading jobs could have access to all government services and posts and could not be discriminated against by private actors (Dutt 2006, 54). Note that this does not mean that Indians have lived by these norms, particularly in their relations with each other. But it does mean that Nehru’s inclusive, secular conception of the state prevailed in 1949 and continues to heavily influence Indian politics today. On the economic front, Nehru initially hoped to expand India’s economy far beyond the British legacy and lift the millions of India’s rural workers out of poverty. The effort would be Herculean in scope since poverty was endemic, industry anemic, and agriculture distorted by years of British rule and exploitation. Roughly two fifths of Indians lived below the poverty line, meaning that they were at risk of serious disease or hunger. They were victims of famine repeatedly and had few prospects of a better life. The vast majority of rural dweller had either no land or such small tracts that they could not feed themselves from it. Three fifths of those living in the countryside owned 6% of the arable land in 1947. Their situation was reinforced by lack of education, lack of social status (many were untouchable), lack of access to power, and lack of access to credit (Sharma 1999, 157). Table 15.1 Prime Ministers of India Leader Period Party Jawaharlal Nehru 1947–1964 Congress Lal Bahadur Shastri 1964–1966 Congress Indira Gandhi 1966–1977 Congress Morarji Desai 1977–1979 Janata Charan Singh 1979–1980 Janata Indira Gandhi 1980–1984 Congress Rajiv Gandhi 1984–1989 Congress V.P. Singh 1989–1990 Janata Dal Chandra Shekhar 1990–1991 Janata Dal P.V. Narasimha Rao 1991–1996 Congress A.B. Vajpayee 1996 BJP H.D. Deve Gowda 1996–1997 Janata Dal I.K. Gujral 1997–1998 Janata Dal A.B. Vajpayee 1998–2004 BJP Manmohan Singh 2004+ Congress Full terms are shaded. M15_STIL9950_08_SE_C15.qxd 6/3/09 11:41 PM Page 257 258 CHAPTER 15 Decolonization and Development: India Rising The aim of India’s planners in the 1950s was to increase the investment rate, which in turn required increasing savings and improving the investment climate (Bhagwati 1998, 27). The state would fill the gaps. In 1948, the Industrial Policy Resolution passed by the legislature established the legal framework for a mixed economy in which private firms would coexist with state-owned corporations. The state would have exclusive powers over “schedule A” industries, including muni- tions and armaments, atomic energy, iron and steel, heavy machinery, mining, machine tools, coal, transportation (except automobile and truck), telecommunica- tions, and electrical power. Private firms could support state plans in “schedule B” industries, such as chemicals, drugs, fertilizers, rubber, and so forth. The rest were left to private industry (schedule C) (Dutt 2006, 105). New firms had to be licensed, and there was a limit to the total number of licenses. This continued until 1970. The resources and supports provided to these major industrial sectors were considerable, although they went to only relatively few firms and factories. The Tata Group was a special beneficiary, enabling the well-established firm to become