Is there a connection between democracy and Niti Aayog? Or, not to put too fine a point on it, between India’s democracy and the government’s think tank on economic affairs that was created as the National Institute for Transforming India (Niti) by dismantling the Planning Commission, which had planned to achieve balanced development of the various regions to remove poverty. Probably not, if putative observations of the Niti Ayog CEO, Amitabh Kant, made recently, are to be taken at face value.
The transformation of India in the conception of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is the chairman of the think tank he created in January 2015 through a mere cabinet decision and not the constitutional route, is to be achieved, fundamentally through de-regulation in all fields of economic activity. This means taking away any role for the government through “hard reforms” that Mr Kant spoke of while addressing an event virtually on Tuesday.
The country’s major news platforms quoted the Niti Aayog operational chief as saying that “tough reforms” were very difficult in the Indian context because there was “too much democracy” in the country. He also noted that the Modi government had shown the “political will” to drive hard reforms. He reeled off examples such as mining, agriculture and labour.
The political meaning of this is obvious — that the rules, regulations and the culture of debate, dissent and protest in a democracy will not yield “tough reforms” needed to deliver economic prosperity. This is a discredited notion and Mr Kant evidently ran for cover when the implication of his remarks was revealed to him. He flatly denied saying the words attributed to him though it is highly unlikely that all reputed media outlets would misquote him. The videos of his only underscore that his clarification and denials are to be regarded with a stiff dose of skepticism.
Mr Kant went to the extent of saying that India can compete with China only through “hard reforms” and not through holding seminars. Seminars imply discussion and debate. This China reference would also suggest that in the Niti Aayog CEO’s scheme, debates are not the way to push “tough reforms”, implying a failure of the well-known basis of democracy. Presumably, then, hard reforms can only be achieved through bulldozing, the way it is done in China, a totalitarian state where a single leader is all knowing and all-powerful.
Examples of so-called “hard reform” (even when they undervalue public welfare by privileging the market principle on an exclusive basis), pushed through the methods of democracy, have evidently eluded Mr Modi’s most powerful economic bureaucrat. He could have recalled, for instance, that former Britain PM Margaret Thatcher battled and debated in Parliament and the media to get her way in scuttling welfare measures of an earlier era to set her country on a new path.
In fact, to make economic reforms non-sliding, acceptance by the widest sections of the people is a necessity, not a luxury, and the political principle of democracy provides for the most thorough means to install a new idea or practice. The present regime has failed to do just that, the most recent egregious example being the contentious agri-laws against which a storm is brewing. These were rammed through Parliament virtually without discussion — in an example of the “political will” shown by the regime.