Prime Minister Narendra Modi has maintained that he will ensure India is considered a developed nation by 2047. What he has not elaborated on is the set of features that will suffice to describe India as developed. In calling a nation developed, it is usually economic numbers that are used, the standard ones being the level of gross domestic product, the rate of growth of GDP, the level of per capita income and, sometimes, the share of the manufacturing sector in GDP indicating the degree of industrialisation. If one were to take these metrics, India is already in the top five in terms of GDP and has a very impressive rate of growth. However, in terms of per capita income, it is quite low. Even if per capita income levels were to increase three times between now and 2047, would it be fair and accurate to claim that India had become a developed economy when looking at these numbers alone?
The broader discourse on economic development introduces a host of other parameters as being essential ingredients of economic development — access to affordable healthcare, access to quality education, good communication infrastructure, safe drinking water, hygienic sanitation systems, adequate nutritional intake, and available shelter in the form of secure housing. Further broadening of the discourse would lead to the identification of institutions like an independent media, a fair judicial system, representative democracy and political and civil liberties as desirable features of a developed society and economy. Finally, questions of fairness enter the discussion when one talks about gross inequalities in income and wealth and unsustainable inter-generational inequalities brought about by the rapid depletion of natural resources and a systematic degradation of the environment through wastes and pollution. These issues are all centred around the notion of justice and fairness.
If one looks at the expanded set of features and the policies required to address those deficits, the question of a political ideology becomes important. Those governing must have a clear, pre-analytical vision of justice. Politics must be able to justify the interventions required for changes to be made beyond the single-minded focus on macro-economic growth. The philosophical premise of the ideology of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party stems from the concept of a narrow idea of who is a genuine Indian and what the role of others who do not fall in that category ought to be. It is based on majoritarianism, non-inclusivity, and social inequality. It may be noted that the three concepts are interrelated. The majority excludes all kinds of minorities; hence the majority takes on a more powerful social and political position compared to others. However, the BJP appears to be settled in terms of its ideological stance and the programmes that emanate from it. It can achieve a lot in terms of macroeconomic growth and the size of the economy, but its ideology will prevent the attainment of many other desirable features of fairness and justice. Inequality, it can be argued, is inherently unjust. An unequal society would tend to have privilege concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. The dispensation of justice would be unfairly tilted towards maintaining their advantage. Such a nation cannot be easily identified as a developed country from a moral point of view.
One common argument against greater equality is that having complete equality in society is not only unfeasible but undesirable too. If inequality is inevitable, what would be the tolerable amount of inequality in any society and economy? A possible starting point to understand the journey towards equality would be to begin with the idea of a just society propounded by the famous philosopher, John Rawls. He argued that every citizen in an economy should have equal claim to the most extensive set of basic rights and liberties compatible with the rights and the liberties of all other citizens. This ought to include, among other things, a secure basic income, political and civil liberties, the right to vote, and the freedom of speech. If there was to be any inequality, it would be so arranged in positions of power so as to be instrumental in creating the greatest advantage for the most disadvantaged members of society. These positions of power would be open to all who sought them.
In arguing as to why people would accept this set of outcomes, Rawls expounded his famous veil of ignorance argument. People could think of an original position where everyone was the same — without wealth, talents or any other advantages. Even their gender would not be known. If they went out and began living in society, some would become poor and disadvantaged while others would become rich and powerful. The basic uncertainty was that no one really knew what they themselves would become. Hence, in such a situation, it would be in their rational interest to agree to redistributive mechanisms that would maximise the condition of the least advantaged individual without altering the rights of others. In other words, make the worst-off as well-off as possible without denying other people’s rights.
Obviously, a question arises as to where the goods and services to be distributed come from. There has to be a set of institutions that produces income. A requirement of justice would be to produce as much as possible so that the outcome for the least privileged can be made as large as possible. This, according to Rawls, was to be found in the market system — an efficient producer of goods from scarce resources. The bigger the economic cake, the better the redistribution. The government would have to have a well-drawn-out charter of activities in ensuring that the least advantaged are taken care of — a social contract, as it were.
The way basic rights and liberties would be defined could go a long way in ensuring much needed access to health and education, infrastructure, and institutions of governance like well-functioning courts of law, an independent media, and improved access to markets. A less unequal society and economy (along with better health and educational indices) would make the physical environment more sustainable too. A dreadfully unequal economy would force the very poor to overwork the environment in terms of extraction as well as pollution — a desperate dependence on nature to survive. On the other hand, the very rich, having access to more than necessary resources, would have the propensity to waste and misuse — features of an unaimed opulence. There would be less of these the more equal a society becomes.
The countries that top the league table of economic and social success are not only way ahead of India in terms of per capita income but also significantly ahead in terms of health, education, civil and political liberties, transparency in governance, and physical infrastructure. They are less unequal than India too. Hence, India has a long way to go to reach the category of a developed economy. A clear programme that defines the goals and the pathways to a just society is needed. For starters, the nation could do with a well-defined economic strategy along with a social programme that moves decisively towards fairness. Focusing exclusively on GDP and economic growth would be like a person concentrating on strenuous physical exercises alone while ignoring the need for a nutritious diet.
Anup Sinha is former Professor of Economics, IIM Calcutta
