Is India Shining... Or is it home to millions of poor - Suhrid Patel

A couple of months ago the world’s largest democracy went to the polls to decide who would govern 1/6 of the world’s population for the next four years.

On one side was the ruling party, the Vajpayee-led BJP coalition, whose policies of privatisation and opening up the economy had been given credit for India’s recent economic boom, and who were also characterised by their connections to hard-line Hindu organisations. Their election slogan, “India is shining”, hoped to cash in on the country’s recent economic success.

In opposition was the Congress Party, led by Sonia Gandhi, traditionally been associated with more socialist policies and proud of its secular, non-religious orientation.

The Congress Party has historically dominated the Indian political scene. It was in government for the majority of the first forty years after independence. However, these days many people claim that their socialist ways and inefficient state-run industries, held the Indian economy back for so long.

For the Congress Party inspite of economic improvements, the majority of people still live in poverty. Their election slogan “garibi hatao” (remove poverty) tried to capture the poor vote, particularly in rural areas.

As the elections approached, everyone already seemed to know the result. The BJP had called the election early, hoping to cash in on the booming economy, early monsoons and recent developments in the Kashmir peace process. Some forecasters even hinted that India’s victory over Pakistan in the cricket would add to the feel good factor.

Contrary to all expectations, the BJP did not win. Congress went on to form a ruling coalition. But there is a twist in the story: party leader Sonia Gandhi did not take the job of Prime Minister. She appointed Manmohan Singh, formerly a finance minister. As a Sikh, Singh is India’s first non-Hindu prime minister. Singh was finance minister in the last Congress government, and was behind the reforms that first led India to open up its economy.

So that’s the background, but what do young people in India think?

India is so large and diverse, that this is an almost impossible question to answer. I interviewed various youngsters from different backgrounds living in Mumbai ( Bombay), India’s largest city and commercial capital. One group consisted of teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been taking remedial English classes at a Vidya; the second was two students from middle class backgrounds, now studying abroad; and finally I interviewed a student at IIT (the Indian Institute of Technology), one of the world’s leading science schools.

When asked about what they thought was good or bad about Vajpayee and the BJP , the remedial English kids talked of how he had made many promises but never delivered. He had done some good, like better roads and railways, but not enough. These kids were struggling to give their opinions in broken English as we sat in an office given to Vidya by IIT.

The middle class kids where interviewed in a luxury hotel, spoke in fluent English and had Oasis playing in the background. Interestingly, they seemed more concerned with India in the wider world. They talked of how Mr. Vajpayee represented India: “He would not embarrass India. He knew what he was talking about”. On the other hand, they felt that he himself was not actually ruling the country and was overpowered by other members of the party. The IIT student talked of the problems in the BJP campaign. He came up with some interesting points. Most notable was how the urban middle class does not vote in India, not because they do not feel there is anyone worth voting for, but because they do no like to stand for hours in hot, sweaty queues at polling stations! The people who vote are the poor, mainly rural population. and campaigning. . The BJP, on the other hand, concentrated on urban areas. This was all very well, but, according to the students’ theory, the people who had benefited from the ‘Shining India’ of the BJP, could not actually be bothered to go and show this happiness at the polling stations

Naturally, the next question was how Manmohan Singh will change things. A range of views emerged. The remedial English kids felt that there will be no change, but it is too early to tell. They also thought he was too “weak” and Sonia Gandhi would have been much “stronger”.

The IIT student expanded on this and described him as “an academic, not a politician”. He felt that he was appointed by Sonia Gandhi and not actually voted in by the Congress party members.

On other issues, both the IIT and the middle class students were positive, expecting more attention for rural areas and continued economic reform. Since Singh was the one who originally started them, they expected the Indian economy to open up even faster under the new government.

Is “ India is shining”? The impression in the West is that that Indian upper and middle classes are getting richer, whereas the poor, mainly in the rural areas, still live in poverty. While many contest this, few can deny that investment is generally confined to cities.

Anyone who has been to India over the last decade will notice the changes. Delhi now has a state of the art metro service; the Bombay-Pune expressway has cut travel time between the two cities from eight to three hours; Bangalore has the largest IT industry in Asia; and all the major cities are full of shopping malls, coffee shops and nightclubs for the new richer Indian urban middle class. Here we have a group of youngsters living in India’s largest and most developed city. What do they think of all this?

The remedial English kids still think there are too many problems. For them, everything is becoming more expensive, and yet wages have only increased minimally. They talk of the recent three-day bus strike in Bombay as an example of people not being paid enough. The number of jobs is increasing, but the population is growing faster.

Are things are better now than ten years ago? I got an immediate “YES”. Similarly, when asked their opinion on foreign companies coming to India, the emphatic answer was “so what, they are bringing jobs”. They do not seem to be worried about globalisation.

My friend from IIT is not so happy with foreign companies. His immediate reaction is that “Mumbai is already developed.” But then his tone changes. He remembers that 30% of the population live in slums. He points out that call centres will only employ people who can speak good English, IT companies will employ people with technical computer skills. In short, they will only take educated English-speaking people, not the slum population, many of whom cannot even read or write Hindi let alone English.

Foreign TNCs (transnational corporations) are only doing what the British East India Company did during colonial times. Only now, they are exploiting India’s human resources, rather than its natural ones”, he explains. “What will happen when skilled labour begins to become available in even poorer countries, maybe in Africa; the TNCs will just move there? So the only way forward is for Indian companies to grow.” At this point I asked him what was to stop Indian companies from shifting operations to countries with cheaper labour costs in Africa, or maybe even to Bangladesh or Nepal. Suddenly everything seemed very glum.

The middle class students seem happier. Call centre jobs are available “to anyone who can speak decent English” and “anyone who has finished up to 12 standard” (the equivalent of A-levels). They talk of how unusual it was ten years ago for a college student to have a job. Now it is no big thing to work at a call centre. Though most people have some sort of qualification but this does not guarantee them a job. Some people with Bcom degrees work as drivers. They also talk of how it will be for the next generation which will reap the benefits of the new boom: “even people with degrees who may only now be receiving 3000 rupees (approx. US$ 65) a month will save up and send their kids to school. So more people will be in education.”

What stood out most from the interviewees was that they all cared deeply about what was going on in their country.Their opinions were strong and informed. Would similar people in the UK be able to talk in the same way about the British economy and politics?

Suhrid Patel volunteered at VIDYA, Mumbai in 2004. He is currently studying Economics & Geography at LSE.