Three forces that have shaped modern India and their significance
The three forces that define today’s India were unleashed in the 12 months between August 1990 and August 1991.
Thirty-three years later, it is these forces that are finally being rewarded with India’s highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna.
The first force, Mandal, was unleashed in August 1990, when the V.P. Singh-led government announced ‘backward caste’ quotas in central government jobs.
While reservations for ST and SC had been recognised in the Constitution itself.
Quotas for middle castes began in the southern States from the 1950s.
Their adoption in the northern States was symbolised in the 1970s by Bihar Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur.
In 1990, they became central government policy through the implementation of the Mandal Commission report.
The second force that defines today’s India is the building of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.
The movement began in the early 1980s and was adopted by the BJP as a political issue only later.
As I argue in my book, Jugalbandi: The BJP Before Modi, L.K. Advani’s rath yatra on a converted Toyota, from Somnath to Ayodhya, that began in September 1990, was a signal to the movement faithful that the party was finally with them.
The third force unleashed on India was Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s liberalisation.
Like with Mandal and Mandir, the Market’s journey had begun earlier.
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had tried to free the economy from red tape but lacked the political skills to navigate reform.
It was only in mid-1991 that P.V. Narasimha Rao, overcame his many political handicaps to finally open up the economy.
Mandal Commission report
The Mandal Commission report on reservations in India is a significant document in the country's history, sparking both progress and controversy.
Background:
In 1978, the Indian government formed the Mandal Commission to identify "socially and educationally backward classes" (OBCs) and recommend steps for their advancement.
The commission, led by B.P. Mandal, submitted its report in 1980.
Key Findings:
The report estimated that OBCs constituted 52% of the Indian population.
It concluded that OBCs faced social, educational, and economic disadvantages similar to SC ad ST.
It recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and public sector undertakings.
Recommendations:
The commission argued that reservation quotas should reflect population proportions, leading to the 27% recommendation for OBCs.
However, legal constraints capped total reservations below 50%, resulting in 27% for OBCs.
The report proposed various other measures to uplift OBCs, including educational scholarships and economic assistance.
Impact:
The implementation of the recommendations in 1990 triggered widespread protests, particularly from upper castes who felt unfairly disadvantaged.
Despite the controversy, the reservations have improved socio-economic opportunities for many OBCs.
The debate around caste-based reservations remains complex and ongoing, with arguments for and against the system.
India's economic liberalization initiated by Rao in 1991
Narasimha Rao’s reforms were not confined to economics alone.
Rao brought in welfare schemes to the national level.
Rao also ended militancy in Punjab while managing it in Kashmir.
The errors apart, the sheer scale of the transformation Narasimha Rao brought about needs a larger audience.
In economics, being open to the global economy as well as the private sector.
This was the common sense view across the world in 1991.
Narasimha Rao’s genius was to translate this into common practice.
The second lesson is that liberalisation-led growth is a precondition for welfare schemes.
For all her talk of ‘garibi hatao’, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi spent very little to remove poverty.
Narasimha Rao’s economic reforms did (albeit with a decade-long lag) was to cause a boom in tax revenue.
This has enabled the government to spend amounts on the poor that was unthinkable earlier.
When asked about his economic ideology, Narasimha Rao replied, “My model is not Margaret Thatcher but Willy Brandt.”
He was referring to the social democratic Chancellor of West Germany who, like Narasimha Rao, understood that free market capitalism and state-driven redistribution are two sides of the same coin.
COMMENTS